Phonological Accuracy and Intelligibility in Connected Speech of Boys With Fragile X Syndrome or Down Syndrome

Abstract

Purpose We compared the phonological accuracy and speech intelligibility of boys with fragile X syndrome with autism spectrum disorder (FXS-ASD), fragile X syndrome only (FXS-O), Down Syndrome (DS), and typically developing (TD) boys. Method Participants were 32 boys with FXS-O (3 to 14 years), 31 with FXS-ASD (5 to 15 years), 34 with DS (4 to16 years), and 45 TD boys of similar nonverbal mental age. We used connected speech samples to compute measures of phonological accuracy, phonological process occurrence, and intelligibility. Results The boys with FXS, regardless of autism status, did not differ from TD boys on phonological accuracy and phonological process occurrence but produced fewer intelligible words than TD boys. The boys with DS scored lower on measures of phonological accuracy and occurrence of phonological processes than all other groups and used fewer intelligible words than TD boys. The boys with FXS and the boys with DS did not differ on measures of intelligibility. Conclusion Boys with FXS, regardless of autism status, exhibit phonological characteristics similar to those of younger TD children but are less intelligible in connected speech. The boys with DS show greater delays in all phonological measures than the boys with FXS and TD boys.

Speech characteristics of 8-year-old children: Findings from a prospective population study

“…Connected speech samples do have a unique contribution to make in the analysis of intelligibility however and there is evidence to suggest that variation in intelligibility can be perceived even when differences in phonological accuracy are not observed (Barnes et al, 2009). The picture that is emerging from this data in combination with the existing evidence base suggests that connected speech samples do provide useful supplementary data in identifying 8-year-old children with atypical speech.…”

“…Yet a number of studies have highlighted the important contribution of connected speech in the assessment of children's speech (Barnes, Roberts, Long, Martin, Berni, Mandulak et al, 2009;Howard, 2004;Klein & Liu-Shea, 2009;McLeod, Hand, Rosenthal & Hayes, 1994;Morrison & Shriberg, 1992). Some of the published assessments of speech provide an opportunity to sample connected speech.…”

Language Sampling for Preschoolers With Severe Speech Impairments

“…Connected speech samples are considered one of the most socially valid measures of speech and language (Flipsen, 2006a;Kwiatkowski & Shriberg, 1992) and have long been used to assess both phonology and language. With regard to phonology, reliable speech-related measures have been reported in connected speech samples for children with speech delays, at least with measures involving broad transcription (e.g., Barnes et al, 2009;Shriberg, Kwiatkowski, & Hoffman, 1984;Shriberg & Lof, 1991). For example, Barnes et al (2009) used connected speech samples to examine the phonological accuracy and speech intelligibility of children with Fragile X and Down syndrome.…”

“…With regard to phonology, reliable speech-related measures have been reported in connected speech samples for children with speech delays, at least with measures involving broad transcription (e.g., Barnes et al, 2009;Shriberg, Kwiatkowski, & Hoffman, 1984;Shriberg & Lof, 1991). For example, Barnes et al (2009) used connected speech samples to examine the phonological accuracy and speech intelligibility of children with Fragile X and Down syndrome. Connected speech samples taken during administration of an autism assessment battery were collected for each participant.…”

“…For example, Barnes et al (2009) marked each unintelligible word or syllable in language sampling transcripts with an X. This approach renders it possible to still calculate MLUw, mean number of syllables per word, or mean number of syllables per utterance derived from the sample (Flipsen, 2006a).…”