Shriberg & Widder (1990)

NATURE OF PROSODIC DISORDERS

ANALYSIS FORM

 

 

KEY:

NA = not applicable

P = participant or patient

pmh = Patricia Hargrove, blog developer

 

SOURCE: Shriberg, L. D., & Widder, C. J. (1990). Speech and prosody characteristics of adults with mental retardation. Journal of Speech and Hearing Rsearch, 33, 627-653.

 

REVIEWER(S): pmh

 

DATE: September 12, 2014

 

ASSIGNED GRADE FOR OVERALL QUALITY: C+ (Based on the design, the highest possible grade was C+.)

 

POPULATION: Intellectual disability; Adults

 

PURPOSE: to investigate the speech and prosodic skills of adults with intellectual disability and to determine if the profiles are associated with gender, level of disability, or perceived capacity to function independently. (NOTE: this review will focus only on procedures and findings related to prosody.)

 

INSIGHTS ABOUT PROSODY:

  • prosody (and speech skills) were significantly not different based on gender or level of disability
  • certain aspects of prosody (phrasing/fluency, loudness, pitch) tended to be more accurate in participants (P’s) with higher perceived probability of independence than Ps with lower perceived probability of independence. The trends were not significant.
  • other aspects of prosody (rate and stress) tended to be more accurate in Ps with lower perceived probability of independence. Although the investigators labeled one of these trends to be significant (stress), the p level did not reach the standard level (≤ 0.05.)
  • More than 80% of the Ps experienced challenges with Quality.
  • Many of the Ps experienced difficulty with phrasing/fluency, rate, and stress.
  • The investigators contend that the prosodic challenges of adults with intellectual disability are likely to be related to sociolinguistic constrains.

 

 

  1. What type of evidence was identified?
  • Retrospective, Nonrandomized Group Comparison Design– these were pre-existing data and much of the data were already in files or audiotaped

 

  1. Group membership determination:
  2. If there were groups of participants were members of groups matched? Yes
  3. The matching strategy involved:
  • a random sample of 192 audiotapes was reduced to 116 tapes
  • one of the investigators screened the 116 tapes for exclusionary criteria. (See item 4b for a listing of exclusionary criteria.) The exclusions yielded 89 tapes.
  • Forty audiotapes were randomly selected from the 89 audiotapes but there was balance within the group with equal numbers of males and females as well as equal numbers of participants (Ps) classified as evidencing mild and moderate mental retardation.
  • The 40 Ps were sorted into two groups using the results of the “Estimated Probability of Independent Living Index.” This resulted in 2 groups: Lower Estimated Probability (n = 18) and Higher Estimated Probability (n = 19.) (The scores of 3Ps were not available to the investigators.)
  1. Was participants’ status concealed?
  2. from participants? NA
  3. from assessment administrators? Unclear
  4. from data analyzers? Unclear

                                                                    

 

  1. Were the groups adequately described? Yes
  2. How many participants were involved in the study?
  • total # of participants: 40
  • was group membership maintained throughout the experiment? No, the unavailability of 3 scores on the “Estimated Probability of Independent Living” resulted in removing 3Ps from the investigation.
  • # of groups: 2
  • List names of groups: Lower Estimated Probability and Higher Estimated Probability
  • # of participants in each group: Lower Estimated Probability (n = 18) and Higher Estimated Probability (n = 19.)

           

EXCLUSION CRITERIA:

  • age: less than 20 years or more than 50 of age or age or not documented in records
  • gender: gender not documented in records
  • cognitive skills: level of mental retarding not documented in records
  • race: race not documented in records
  • audio tape quality: excessive background noise or signal quality problems
  • motor skills: nonambulatory
  • oral motor skills: perceived dysarthric speech

DESCRIBED:

  • age: range- 20 to 55 years
  • gender: male (50%); female (50%)
  • race: Caucasian (100%)
  • cognitive skills: mild level of mental retardation (50%); moderate level of mental retardation (50%)
  • current living location:

– group home (42.5%)

– structured community facility (20%)

– own or foster family (20%)

– nursing home (7.5%)

– apartment (7.5%)

– not reported (2.5%)

  • current work status:

– sheltered workshop (55%)

– work activity center (17.5%)

– job in community with training (10%)

– not reported (7.5%)

– job in community with no training (5%)

– on the job training (2.5%)

– other (2.5%)

  • dressing skills: no assistance needed (92.5%); not reported (7.5%)
  • eating skills: no assistance needed (95%); not reported (5%)
  • toileting: no assistance needed (95%); not reported (5%)
  • motor skills: ambulatory (95%); not reported (5%)

 

4c. Were the communication problems adequately described? No. Speech was not described in the P characteristics although it was measured as part of the dependent measures. (See item #7.)

 

  1. What were the different conditions for this research?

                                                                                                             

  1. Subject (Classification) Groups? Yes
  • Lower Estimated Probability of Independence
  • Higher Estimated Probability of Independence

                                                               

  1. Experimental Conditions? No

 

  1. Criterion/Descriptive Conditions? Yes

See item #7

 

  1. Were the groups controlled acceptably? Yes

 

 

  1. Were dependent measures appropriate and meaningful? Yes
  2. The dependent measures included (only measures related to prosody are listed here)
  • Measure #1: Percentage of utterances with acceptable productions of Phrasing/Fluency in the spontaneous speech sample
  • Measure #2: Percentage of utterances with acceptable productions of Rate in the spontaneous speech sample
  • Measure #3: Percentage of utterances with acceptable productions of Stress in the spontaneous speech sample
  • Measure #4: Percentage of utterances with acceptable productions of Loudness in the spontaneous speech sample
  • Measure #5: Percentage of utterances with acceptable productions of Pitch in the spontaneous speech sample
  • Measure #6: Percentage of occurrence of unacceptable juncture in the spontaneous speech sample
  • Measure #7: Percentage of occurrence of unacceptable stress-timing in the spontaneous speech sample
  • Measure #8: Gender of P
  • Measure #9: Classification of P as mildly or moderately mentally retarded
  1. All of the dependent measures were subjective.

 

  1. None of the dependent measures were objective.

                                         

 

  1. Were reliability measures provided? (only measures related to prosody are listed here)

                                                                                                            

  1. Interobserver for analyzers? Inconsistent.
  2. Measures #1- 5 were the result of consensus of a panel of judges.
  3. the overall interobserver reliability for narrow transcriptions which would include Measures #6 and 7 was 71%

 

 

  1. Intraobserver for analyzers? Inconsistent.
  • the overall interobserver reliability for narrow transcriptions, which would include Measures #6 and 7, was 71%

 

  1. Treatment fidelity for investigators? Not Applicable

 

 

  1. Description of design: (briefly describe)
  • The investigators developed profiles of the speech and prosody skills of adults with developmental intellectual disabilities. The profiles were generated from pre-existing spontaneous speech samples that were broadly and narrowly transcribed and a version of the Prosody-Voice Screening Profile.
  • The Ps were divided into two groups: Ps with Lower Estimated Probability of Independent Living and Ps with Higher Estimated Probability of Independent Living.
  • The investigators used nonparametric inferential statistical analyses to compare the 2 groups on a variety of measures/information derived from the Ps’ records.

 

  1. What were the results of the inferential statistical testing

 

  1. The prosodic comparisons that were significant:

NOTE: The investigators designated p ≤ 0.10 as their criterion for significance. Only comparisons of prosodic measures that meet the investigators’ criterion are listed below. If a comparison reaches the more typical p level of p ≤ 0.05, that is noted).

  • Measure #3: Percentage of utterances with acceptable productions of Stress in the spontaneous speech sample— but the Ps with the Lower Estimated Probability of Independence evidenced significantly higher scores
  1. The statistical tests used to determine significance were
  • Mann-Whitney Two-Sample Rank Test: comparisons of Measures #1-7
  • :
  • Kruskal-Wallis One Way Analysis of Variance: comparisons of Measures #8 and 9
  1. Were effect sizes provided? No

 

  1. What were the results of the correlational statistical testing? NA __x__ check here if there was no correlational analysis)

 

  1. What were the results of the descriptive analysis

NOTE: Only prosodic measures are summarized here:

  • Measure #1: Percentage of utterances with acceptable productions of Phrasing/Fluency in the spontaneous speech sample—median percentage correct was slightly below 85% (the cut-off for problems). Some Ps had considerable problems with this measure. The Ps with Higher Estimated Probability of Independence tended to achieve higher scores.
  • Measure #2: Percentage of utterances with acceptable productions of Rate in the spontaneous speech sample—median percentage correct was slightly below 75% (the cut-off for problems was 85%). Some Ps had considerable problems with this measure. The Ps with Lower Estimated Probability of Independence tended to achieve higher scores.
  • Measure #3: Percentage of utterances with acceptable productions of Stress in the spontaneous speech sample—median percentage correct was slightly below 85% (the cut-off for problems). Some Ps had considerable problems with this measure. The Ps with Lower Estimated Probability of Independence tended to achieve higher scores.
  • Measure #4: Percentage of utterances with acceptable productions of Loudness in the spontaneous speech sample— median percentage correct ≥ 90% although some Ps had considerable difficulty. The Ps with Higher Estimated Probability of Independence tended to achieve higher scores.
  • Measure #5: Percentage of utterances with acceptable productions of Pitch in the spontaneous speech sample— median percentage correct ≥ 90% although some Ps had difficulty. The Ps with Higher Estimated Probability of Independence tended to achieve higher scores.
  • Measure #6: Percentage of occurrence of unacceptable juncture in the spontaneous speech sample—similar trends for both groups
  • Measure #7: Percentage of occurrence of unacceptable stress-timing in the spontaneous speech sample—similar trends for both groups
  • Measure #8: Gender of P—not associated with speech or prosodic characteristics
  • Measure #9: Classification of P as mildly or moderately mentally retarded– not associated with speech or prosodic characteristics

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: