Jessica L Sofranko1, Robert A Prosek. 1. Department of Communication Sciences and Disorder, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA. jls991@psu.edu
Abstract
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: The purpose of this study was to compare the agreement among several groups of listeners with different types of experience in regard to classifying voice quality. STUDY DESIGN: This is a retrospective cross-sectional quasi-experimental design. METHOD: This study compared three groups: speech-language pathologists who specialize in voice, singing voice teachers, and inexperienced listeners. All groups were asked to classify voice samples as breathy, rough, or normal. RESULTS: Results show a significant difference across all groups with speech-language pathologists demonstrating a substantial interrater agreement, κ=0.67, z=103.07 (P<0.01); singing voice teachers demonstrating a moderate interrater agreement, κ=0.53, z=79.10 (P<0.01); and inexperienced listeners demonstrating a fair interrater agreement, κ=0.24, z=35.82 (P<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Experienced listeners demonstrated a higher interrater agreement as compared with inexperienced listeners, with speech-language pathologists demonstrating a superior agreement as compared with all groups.
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: The purpose of this study was to compare the agreement among several groups of listeners with different types of experience in regard to classifying voice quality. STUDY DESIGN: This is a retrospective cross-sectional quasi-experimental design. METHOD: This study compared three groups: speech-language pathologists who specialize in voice, singing voice teachers, and inexperienced listeners. All groups were asked to classify voice samples as breathy, rough, or normal. RESULTS: Results show a significant difference across all groups with speech-language pathologists demonstrating a substantial interrater agreement, κ=0.67, z=103.07 (P<0.01); singing voice teachers demonstrating a moderate interrater agreement, κ=0.53, z=79.10 (P<0.01); and inexperienced listeners demonstrating a fair interrater agreement, κ=0.24, z=35.82 (P<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Experienced listeners demonstrated a higher interrater agreement as compared with inexperienced listeners, with speech-language pathologists demonstrating a superior agreement as compared with all groups.