| Literature DB >> 34354434 |
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previous studies reported the efficacy of the implementation of information technology in clinical evaluation. No research has addressed the development of mobile applications for the clinical evaluation and diagnosis of paediatric language disorders.Entities:
Keywords: Clinical assessment; Paediatric; Speech pathology; mHealth
Year: 2021 PMID: 34354434 PMCID: PMC8324922 DOI: 10.1016/j.sjbs.2021.04.046
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Saudi J Biol Sci ISSN: 2213-7106 Impact factor: 4.219
Fig. 1Overview of the PALT app prototype.
Fig. 2School testing setting using the Paediatric Arabic Language Test app prototype.
End-users by level of experience and age range.
| Junior student clinicians | 57 | 19–20 |
| Senior student clinician (Level 8) | 18 | 21–22 |
| Clinicians (+7 years’ experience) | 2 | 34–37 |
| Total | 77 |
Fig. 3Distribution of the overall CSUQ scores for PALT prototype.
Percentages, means and SD of the CSUQ ratings for the PALT prototype (N = 77).
| 1 | 1(1.3%) | 4(5.2%) | 22(28.6%) | 23(29.9%) | 27(35.1%) | 3.95 | 0.965 |
| 2 | 2(2.6%) | 3(3.9%) | 11(14.3%) | 31(40.3%) | 30(39%) | 4.12 | 0.938 |
| 3 | 0(0%) | 7(9.1%) | 13(16.9%) | 22(28.6%) | 35(45.5%) | 4.13 | 0.971 |
| 4 | 0(0%) | 12(15.6%) | 15(19.5%) | 22(28.6%) | 28(36.4%) | 3.88 | 1.07 |
| 5 | 0(0%) | 3(3.9%) | 20(26%) | 24(31.2%) | 30(39%) | 4.05 | 0.908 |
| 6 | 2(2.6%) | 5(6.5%) | 24(31.2%) | 17(22.1%) | 29(37.7%) | 3.87 | 1.087 |
| 7 | 0(0%) | 3(3.9%) | 19(24.7%) | 23(29.9%) | 32(41.6%) | 4.11 | 0.903 |
| 8 | 1(1.3%) | 4(5.2%) | 21(27.3%) | 20(26%) | 31(40.3%) | 4.01 | 0.986 |
| 9 | 9(11.7%) | 16(20.8%) | 26(33.8%) | 11(14.3%) | 15(19.5%) | 3.09 | 1.277 |
| 10 | 1(1.3%) | 8(10.4%) | 26(33.8%) | 18(23.4%) | 23(29.9%) | 3.71 | 1.056 |
| 11 | 0(0%) | 3(3.9%) | 13(16.9%) | 19(24.7%) | 42(54.5%) | 4.32 | 0.883 |
| 12 | 0(0%) | 6(7.8%) | 11(14.3%) | 24(31.2%) | 36(46.8%) | 4.17 | 0.958 |
| 13 | 0(0%) | 1(1.3%) | 15(19.5%) | 21(27.3%) | 40(51.9%) | 4.32 | 0.82 |
| 14 | 0(0%) | 6(7.8%) | 15(19.5%) | 17(22.1%) | 39(50.6%) | 4.18 | 0.976 |
| 15 | 0(0%) | 4(5.2%) | 14(18.2%) | 18(23.4%) | 41(53.2%) | 4.25 | 0.94 |
| 16 | 2(2.6%) | 6(7.8%) | 23(29.9%) | 20(26%) | 26(33.8%) | 3.82 | 1.08 |
| 17 | 0(0%) | 10(13%) | 26(33.8%) | 19(24.7%) | 22(28.6%) | 3.71 | 1.017 |
| 18 | 0(0%) | 8(10.4%) | 20(26%) | 16(20.8%) | 33(42.9%) | 3.99 | 1.039 |
| 19 | 0(0%) | 5(6.5%) | 21(27.3%) | 20(26%) | 31(40.3%) | 4.01 | 0.973 |
Categorizing percentages of the total CSUQ scale scores.
| Not satisfied (19–31) | 0 N | 0% percent |
| Neutral (32–62) | 19 | 25% |
| Very satisfied (63–95) | 57 | 75% |
Varimax-rotated factor pattern for the principal factor analysis of the CSUQ for PALT.
| 1 | 0.26 | |
| 2 | 0.15 | |
| 3 | 0.17 | |
| 4 | ||
| 5 | 0.36 | |
| 6 | 0.39 | |
| 7 | 0.14 | |
| 8 | 0.47 | |
| 9 | 0.01 | |
| 10 | 0.42 | 0.56 |
| 11 | 0.18 | |
| 12 | 0.41 | |
| 13 | 0.44 | |
| 14 | 0.28 | |
| 15 | 0.51 | |
| 16 | 0.27 | |
| 17 | 0.25 | |
| 18 | 0.41 | |
| 19 | 0.58 |
Average factor loading matrix for the CSUQ (N = 77).
| 75.68 ± 14.18 | 47–95 | |
| 57.36 ± 10.76 | 34–70 | |
| 18.31 ± 4.43 | 8–25 | |
A comparison of factors loading of the CSUQ items between the current study and Lewis.
| 1 | 1 | 1 | ||
| 2 | 1 | 1 | ||
| 3 | 1 | 1 | ||
| 4 | 1 | 1 | ||
| 5 | 1 | 1 | ||
| 6 | 1 | 1 | ||
| 7 | 1 | 1 | ||
| 8 | 1 | 1 | ||
| 9 | 2 | 2 | ||
| 10 | 2 | 2 | ||
| 11 | 1 | 2 | ||
| 12 | 1 | 2 | ||
| 13 | 1 | 2 | ||
| 14 | 1 | 2 | ||
| 15 | 1 | 2 | ||
| 16 | 2 | 3 | ||
| 17 | 2 | 3 | ||
| 18 | 2 | 3 | ||
| 19 | 1 | N/A |
PCA with Varimax rotation of the CSUQ ratings for this study using z-standardization, POMP and IBM SPSS methods.
| 1 | 0.26 | 0.26 | 0.26 | |||
| 2 | 0.15 | 0.15 | 0.15 | |||
| 3 | 0.17 | 0.17 | 0.17 | |||
| 4 | 0.51 | 0.51 | 0.51 | |||
| 5 | 0.36 | 0.36 | 0.36 | |||
| 6 | 0.39 | 0.39 | 0.39 | |||
| 7 | 0.14 | 0.14 | 0.14 | |||
| 8 | 0.47 | 0.47 | 0.47 | |||
| 9 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | |||
| 10 | 0.42 | 0.55 | 0.42 | 0.55 | 0.42 | 0.55 |
| 11 | 0.18 | 0.18 | 0.18 | |||
| 12 | 0.41 | 0.41 | 0.41 | |||
| 13 | 0.44 | 0.44 | 0.44 | |||
| 14 | 0.28 | 0.28 | 0.28 | |||
| 15 | 0.51 | 0.51 | 0.51 | |||
| 16 | 0.27 | 0.27 | 0.27 | |||
| 17 | 0.25 | 0.25 | 0.25 | |||
| 18 | 0.41 | 0.41 | 0.41 | |||
| 19 | 0.58 | 0.58 | 0.58 | |||