Katarina L Haley1, Heidi Roth, Enetta Grindstaff, Adam Jacks. 1. Division of Speech and Hearing Sciences, CB#7190; Department of Allied Health Sciences; The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill NC 27599.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previous work indicates that single word intelligibility tests developed for dysarthria are sensitive to segmental production errors in aphasic individuals with and without apraxia of speech. However, potential listener learning effects and difficulties adapting elicitation procedures to coexisting language impairments limit their applicability to left hemisphere stroke survivors. AIMS: The main purpose of this study was to examine basic psychometric properties for a new monosyllabic intelligibility test developed for individuals with aphasia and/or AOS. A related purpose was to examine clinical feasibility and potential to standardize a computer-mediated administration approach. METHODS #ENTITYSTARTX00026; PROCEDURES: A 600-item monosyllabic single word intelligibility test was constructed by assembling sets of phonetically similar words. Custom software was used to select 50 target words from this test in a pseudo-random fashion and to elicit and record production of these words by 23 speakers with aphasia and 20 neurologically healthy participants. To evaluate test-retest reliability, two identical sets of 50-word lists were elicited by requesting repetition after a live speaker model. To examine the effect of a different word set and auditory model, an additional set of 50 different words was elicited with a pre-recorded model. The recorded words were presented to normal-hearing listeners for identification via orthographic and multiple-choice response formats. To examine construct validity, production accuracy for each speaker was estimated via phonetic transcription and rating of overall articulation. OUTCOMES #ENTITYSTARTX00026; RESULTS: Recording and listening tasks were completed in less than six minutes for all speakers and listeners. Aphasic speakers were significantly less intelligible than neurologically healthy speakers and displayed a wide range of intelligibility scores. Test-retest and inter-listener reliability estimates were strong. No significant difference was found in scores based on recordings from a live model versus a pre-recorded model, but some individual speakers favored the live model. Intelligibility test scores correlated highly with segmental accuracy derived from broad phonetic transcription of the same speech sample and a motor speech evaluation. Scores correlated moderately with rated articulation difficulty. CONCLUSIONS: We describe a computerized, single-word intelligibility test that yields clinically feasible, reliable, and valid measures of segmental speech production in adults with aphasia. This tool can be used in clinical research to facilitate appropriate participant selection and to establish matching across comparison groups. For a majority of speakers, elicitation procedures can be standardized by using a pre-recorded auditory model for repetition. This assessment tool has potential utility for both clinical assessment and outcomes research.
BACKGROUND: Previous work indicates that single word intelligibility tests developed for dysarthria are sensitive to segmental production errors in aphasic individuals with and without apraxia of speech. However, potential listener learning effects and difficulties adapting elicitation procedures to coexisting language impairments limit their applicability to left hemisphere stroke survivors. AIMS: The main purpose of this study was to examine basic psychometric properties for a new monosyllabic intelligibility test developed for individuals with aphasia and/or AOS. A related purpose was to examine clinical feasibility and potential to standardize a computer-mediated administration approach. METHODS #ENTITYSTARTX00026; PROCEDURES: A 600-item monosyllabic single word intelligibility test was constructed by assembling sets of phonetically similar words. Custom software was used to select 50 target words from this test in a pseudo-random fashion and to elicit and record production of these words by 23 speakers with aphasia and 20 neurologically healthy participants. To evaluate test-retest reliability, two identical sets of 50-word lists were elicited by requesting repetition after a live speaker model. To examine the effect of a different word set and auditory model, an additional set of 50 different words was elicited with a pre-recorded model. The recorded words were presented to normal-hearing listeners for identification via orthographic and multiple-choice response formats. To examine construct validity, production accuracy for each speaker was estimated via phonetic transcription and rating of overall articulation. OUTCOMES #ENTITYSTARTX00026; RESULTS: Recording and listening tasks were completed in less than six minutes for all speakers and listeners. Aphasic speakers were significantly less intelligible than neurologically healthy speakers and displayed a wide range of intelligibility scores. Test-retest and inter-listener reliability estimates were strong. No significant difference was found in scores based on recordings from a live model versus a pre-recorded model, but some individual speakers favored the live model. Intelligibility test scores correlated highly with segmental accuracy derived from broad phonetic transcription of the same speech sample and a motor speech evaluation. Scores correlated moderately with rated articulation difficulty. CONCLUSIONS: We describe a computerized, single-word intelligibility test that yields clinically feasible, reliable, and valid measures of segmental speech production in adults with aphasia. This tool can be used in clinical research to facilitate appropriate participant selection and to establish matching across comparison groups. For a majority of speakers, elicitation procedures can be standardized by using a pre-recorded auditory model for repetition. This assessment tool has potential utility for both clinical assessment and outcomes research.