Diehl et al. (2009)

ANALYSIS GUIDELINES

Comparison/Nonintervention Research 

KEY:

ADOS = Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule

ASD = autism spectrum disorder

eta = partial eta squared

F0 = fundamental frequency 

HFA = high-functioning autism

MLU = mean length of utterance

NA = Not Applicable

P = participant or patient

pmh = Patricia Hargrove, blog developer

SD =standard deviation (SD) 

SLP = speech-language pathologist

WNL = within normal limits 

SOURCE:  Diehl, J. J., Watson, D., Bennetto, L., Mcdonough, J., & Gunlogson, C. (2009). An acoustic analysis of prosody in high-functioning autism. Applied Psycholinguistics, 30, 385-404.

REVIEWER(S): pmh

DATE: November 7, 2021  

ASSIGNED GRADE FOR OVERALL QUALITY:  Not Applicable (NA)—This investigation is not concerned with treatment

TAKE AWAY:  In two studies investigating prosody, participants (Ps) displayed increased fundamental frequency (F0) variability in narratives. This variability is not diagnostic because there was overlap between the high functioning autism (HFA) and the Control groups and not all HFA) Ps produced speech that was highly variable. In addition, the findings for adolescents with HFA (in Study 1) revealed an association between clinical ratings of prosody and the F0 measurements. This association was not noted in Study 2, with younger children.

STUDY 1

1.  What type of evidence was identified? 

• What was the type of design?  Comparison Research

• What was the focus of the research? Clinically Related

• What was the level of support associated with the type of evidence?  Level = NA

2.  Group membership determination: 

 If there were groups, were participants randomly assigned to groups? No

•  If there were groups and Ps were not randomly assigned to groups, were members of groups carefully matched? Yes 

3.  Were experimental conditions concealed?

•  from participants? No 

•  from administrators of experimental conditions? No

•  from analyzers/judges? No 

4.  Were the groups adequately described?  Yes 

–   How many participants were involved in the study? 

•  total # of Ps: 42 

•  # of groups: 2

     ∞ Ps with high-functioning autism (HFA) = 21

     ∞ Neurotypical control Ps (C) = 21

•  Did all groups maintain membership throughout the investigation? Yes  

CONTROLLED CHARACTERISTICS                                                      

•  age:  

    ∞ HFA = 10-18 years

     ∞ C = 10-18 years

•  gender:  the number of each gender in the Control group was matched to the number in the HFA group

     ∞ HFA = 19 males; 2 females

     ∞ C = 19 males; 2 females

•  diagnosis:

     ∞ HFA = all Ps met diagnostic criteria for autism spectrum disorder (ASD) but no Ps met diagnostic criteria for Asperger syndrome.

     ∞ C = free from the following diagnoses: ASD, learning disabilities, mental retardation, language disabilities, or other psychiatric conditions

•  diagnoses of first and second degree relatives:

∞ C = free from diagnoses of ASD

DESCRIBED CHARACTERISTICS

•  age:  

     ∞ HFA = mean 13.58

     ∞ C = mean 13.24

•  gender: 

     ∞ HFA = 19 males; 2 females

     ∞ C = 19 males; 2 females

•  cognitive skills:  

     ∞ HFA 

     Full Scale = 118.25 (mean)

     Verbal IQ = 117.0 (mean)

     Performance IQ = 116.05 (mean)

     ∞ C = 

     Full Scale = 116.81 (mean)

     Verbal IQ = 116.62 (mean)

     Performance IQ = 112.76 (mean)

•  receptive language (PPVT- III): 

     ∞ HFA = 115.33 (mean)

     ∞ C = 116.90 (mean)

–  Were the groups similar? Yes. HFA and Control groups were matched on gender, Full scale IQ (FSIQ), Verbal IQ (VIQ), and Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test- III (PPVT III).

–  Were the communication problems adequately described? No

•  disorder type:  (List)  Ps with HFA were described as preforming at or above average on standardized language tests but exhibiting social-communication challenges.

5.  What were the different conditions for this research?

•  Subject (Classification) Groups? Yes 

     – HFA 

     – C

•  Experimental Conditions? NA

•  Criterion/Descriptive Conditions? NA

6.   Were the groups controlled acceptably? Yes

7.  Were dependent measures appropriate and meaningful? Yes 

•  OUTCOME #1: average standard deviation (SD) of the fundamental frequency (F0) for each 250 ms segmnt

•  OUTCOME #2: average F0 across the entire narrative

•  OUTCOME #3: average number of clauses for the entire narrative

– The dependent measure that was subjective

     •  OUTCOME #3: average number of clauses

– The dependent/ outcome measures that were objective

     •  OUTCOME #1: average SD of the F0 

     •  OUTCOME #2: average F0

8.  Were reliability measures provided?

–  Interobserver for analyzers? No  

  Intraobserver for analyzers?  No 

–  Treatment or test administration fidelity for investigators?  No 

9.  Description of design: 

• The Ps individually viewed a cartoon in which, for the most part, the characters were nonverbal. In a few instances, however, characters produced an exclamation.

• Ps viewed one-third of the cartoon and then immediately retold it to a person who reportedly had not viewed the cartoon.

• The samples were recorded, digitalized, and then acoustically analyzed. Each sample was divided into 250 ms portions. The metrics derived across the samples were

     – the average of the SDs of the F0 across each 250 ms P’s sample

     – the average F0 across each P’s 3 samples

     – the average number of clauses 

10.  What were the results of the statistical (inferential) testing?

– Comparisons that are listed as significant achieved p ≤ 0.05):

•  OUTCOME #1: average standard deviation (SD) of the fundamental frequency (F0)  for each 250 ms segment

     – Ps in the HFA group produced significantly larger SDs than the Control group. That is, HFA pitch ranges were significantly wider than Controls. 

•  OUTCOME #2: average F0 across the entire narrative

     – There were no significant differences in the comparisons between the HFA and Control groups. 

•  OUTCOME #3: average number of clauses for the entire narrative

     – The HFA group produced significantly shorter P(i.e., fewer clauses) narratives than the Control group.

–  What was the statistical test used to determine significance?  ANOVA

–  Were effect sizes provided?  Yes. Interpretation Hints for partial eta squared (eta):  .01 small effect, .06 is medium effect, and .14 is large effect.

     •  OUTCOME #1: average standard deviation (SD) of the fundamental frequency (F0)  for each 250 ms segment; Partial Eta squared (Eta) =  0.11 (medium effect)

     •  OUTCOME #2: average F0 across the entire narrative; Eta = 0.05 (small effect)

     •  OUTCOME #3: average number of clauses for the entire narrative; Eta = 0.10 (medium effect)

  Were confidence interval (CI) provided?  No

11.  Summary of correlational results:  

•  OUTCOME #1: average SD of the F0 for each 250 ms segment was correlated with performance on the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule (ADOS) Communication factor score. The results indicated that there was a significant (p ≤ 0.05) correlation between the 2 measures (r = 0.43).

12.  Summary of descriptive results:  Qualitative research. NA

13.  Brief summary of clinically relevant results:  

• As a group, the adolescent Ps with HFA produced significantly wider pitch ranges than Controls. The investigators, however, warn that these findings are not conclusive because there was considerable overlap between the SDs of the 2 groups.

• For the HFA group, the SDs of the F0s was correlated with clinical judgments of communication skill (i.e., performance on the ADOS).

ASSIGNED GRADE FOR QUALITY OF EXTERNAL EVIDENCE:  NA

STUDY 2

1.  What type of evidence was identified? 

• What was the type of design?  Comparison Research

• What was the focus of the research? Clinically Related

• What was the level of support associated with the type of evidence?  Level = NA

2.  Group membership determination: 

• If there were groups, were participants randomly assigned to groups? 

• If there were groups and Ps were not randomly assigned to groups, were members of groups carefully matched? Yes

3.  Were experimental conditions concealed?

•  from participants? No 

•  from administrators of experimental conditions? No 

•  from analyzers/judges? No

4.  Were the groups adequately described? Yes

–   How many participants were involved in the study? 

•  total # of Ps: 34

•  # of groups: 

     – HFA = 17

     – Control = 17

•  Did all groups maintain membership throughout the investigation? 

CONTROLLED CHARACTERISTICS                                                      

•  age: Ps were younger than Study 1 between the ages of 6 to 14

•  cognitive skills: Although Ps cognitive skills were still within normal limits (WNL) they were lower than Study 1

• diagnosis: ASD or Asperger syndrome

DESCRIBED CHARACTERISTICS

•  age:  

     – HFA = 8.81 (mean)

     – Control = 9.49 (mean)

•  gender: 

     – HFA =  13 males, 4 females

     – Control = 12 males; 5 females

•  cognitive skills:  

     – HFA = Composite IQ = 104 (mean); verbal reasoning = 104.8 (mean)

     – Control = Composite IQ = 107.71 (mean); verbal reasoning = 105 (mean)

•  expressive language:  

     – HFA = 100.47 (mean)

     – Control = 102.35 (mean)

•  receptive language: 

     – HFA = 103.35 (mean)

     – Control = 102.12 (mean)

•  diagnosis: 

     – HFA = 15 Ps diagnosed as ASD; 2 diagnosed as Asperger syndrome

     – Control = neurotypical; no history of mental retardation, learning disability, language delay, psychiatric disorders; no history of ASD in first and second degree family members

– Were the groups similar? Yes Matched HFA and Control groups on age, gender, expressive and receptive language scores, composite and verbal reasoning on cognitive tests.

–  Were the communication problems adequately described? No  

5.  What were the different conditions for this research?

  Subject (Classification) Groups? 

     – HFA

     – Control 

  Experimental Conditions? No 

•  Criterion/Descriptive Conditions? No  

6.   Were the groups controlled acceptably? Yes 

7.  Were dependent measures appropriate and meaningful? Yes           

•  OUTCOME #1: average SD of the F0) for each 250 ms segment

•  OUTCOME #2: average F0 across the entire narrative

•  OUTCOME #3: average number of clauses for the entire narrative

– The dependent measure that was subjective was

•  OUTCOME #3: average number of clauses for the entire narrative

 The dependent/ outcome measures that were objective were

•  OUTCOME #1: average standard deviation (SD) of the fundamental frequency (F0) for each 250 ms segment

•  OUTCOME #2: average F0 across the entire narrative

8.  Were reliability measures provided?

 Interobserver for analyzers? No

• Intraobserver for analyzers? No  

• Treatment or test administration fidelity for investigators? No

9.  Description of design: 

• The Ps individually viewed and listened to a recorded reading of the picture book Frog Where Are You?

• The investigators instructed the Ps to listen to the story while they were out of the room and to be prepared to retell the story when the investigator returned. 

• The samples were recorded, digitalized, and then acoustically analyzed. Each sample was divided into 250 ms portions. The metrics derived across the samples were

     – the average of the standard deviations (SD)s of the fundamental frequencies (F0) across each 250 ms P’s sample

     – the average F0 across each P’s 3 samples

     – the average number of clauses 

10.  What were the results of the statistical (inferential) testing?

– Comparisons listed as significant achieved p ≤ 0.05

     •  OUTCOME #1: average standard deviation (SD) of the fundamental frequency (F0)  for each 250 ms segment—The Ps in the HFA groups produced significantly larger SD than the Control group Ps. That is, the variability of the F0 of the Ps in the HFA group was significantly larger.

     •  OUTCOME #2: average F0 across the entire narrative—There was not a significant difference in the productions of the HFA and Control groups.

     •  OUTCOME #3: average number of clauses for the entire narrative– There was not a significant difference in the productions of the HFA and Control groups.

– What was the statistical test used to determine significance? ANOVA

– Were effect sizes provided?   Yes 

Interpretation Hints: 

–  Cohen’s (1988) guidelines for interpreting partial eta squared (eta):  .01 small, .06  medium, and .14 large.

     •  OUTCOME #1: average SD of the F0 for each 250 ms segment; Eta =  0.18 (large effect)

     •  OUTCOME #2: average F0 across the entire narrative; Eta = 0.004 (negligible effect)

     •  OUTCOME #3: average number of clauses for the entire narrative; Eta = 0.08 (medium effect)

–  Were confidence interval (CI) provided? No

11.  Summary of correlational results:  

•  OUTCOME #1: average SD of the F0 for each 250 ms segment was correlated with performance on the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule (ADOS) Communication factor score. The results indicated that there was not a significant correlation between the 2 measures (r = 0.16).

12.  Summary of descriptive results:  Qualitative research. NA

13.  Brief summary of clinically relevant results:  

 The findings of this investigation support previous reports that young children with HFA produce more variation in F0 than neurotypical peers. This variability is not diagnostic because there was overlap between the HFA and the Control groups and not all HFA participants produced speech that was highly variable. 

ASSIGNED GRADE FOR QUALITY OF EXTERNAL EVIDENCE:  NA

ANALYSIS GUIDELINES

Comparison/Nonintervention Research 

KEY:

ADOS = Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule

ASD = autism spectrum disorder

eta = partial eta squared

F0 = fundamental frequency 

HFA = high-functioning autism

MLU = mean length of utterance

NA = Not Applicable

P = participant or patient

pmh = Patricia Hargrove, blog developer

SD =standard deviation (SD) 

SLP = speech-language pathologist

WNL = within normal limits 

SOURCE:  Diehl, J. J., Watson, D., Bennetto, L., Mcdonough, J., & Gunlogson, C. (2009). An acoustic analysis of prosody in high-functioning autism. Applied Psycholinguistics, 30, 385-404.

REVIEWER(S): pmh

DATE: November 7, 2021  

ASSIGNED GRADE FOR OVERALL QUALITY:  Not Applicable (NA)—This investigation is not concerned with treatment

TAKE AWAY:  In two studies investigating prosody, participants (Ps) displayed increased fundamental frequency (F0) variability in narratives. This variability is not diagnostic because there was overlap between the high functioning autism (HFA) and the Control groups and not all HFA) Ps produced speech that was highly variable. In addition, the findings for adolescents with HFA (in Study 1) revealed an association between clinical ratings of prosody and the F0 measurements. This association was not noted in Study 2, with younger children.

STUDY 1

1.  What type of evidence was identified? 

• What was the type of design?  Comparison Research

• What was the focus of the research? Clinically Related

• What was the level of support associated with the type of evidence?  Level = NA

2.  Group membership determination: 

 If there were groups, were participants randomly assigned to groups? No

•  If there were groups and Ps were not randomly assigned to groups, were members of groups carefully matched? Yes 

3.  Were experimental conditions concealed?

•  from participants? No 

•  from administrators of experimental conditions? No

•  from analyzers/judges? No 

4.  Were the groups adequately described?  Yes 

–   How many participants were involved in the study? 

•  total # of Ps: 42 

•  # of groups: 2

     ∞ Ps with high-functioning autism (HFA) = 21

     ∞ Neurotypical control Ps (C) = 21

•  Did all groups maintain membership throughout the investigation? Yes  

CONTROLLED CHARACTERISTICS                                                      

•  age:  

    ∞ HFA = 10-18 years

     ∞ C = 10-18 years

•  gender:  the number of each gender in the Control group was matched to the number in the HFA group

     ∞ HFA = 19 males; 2 females

     ∞ C = 19 males; 2 females

•  diagnosis:

     ∞ HFA = all Ps met diagnostic criteria for autism spectrum disorder (ASD) but no Ps met diagnostic criteria for Asperger syndrome.

     ∞ C = free from the following diagnoses: ASD, learning disabilities, mental retardation, language disabilities, or other psychiatric conditions

•  diagnoses of first and second degree relatives:

∞ C = free from diagnoses of ASD

DESCRIBED CHARACTERISTICS

•  age:  

     ∞ HFA = mean 13.58

     ∞ C = mean 13.24

•  gender: 

     ∞ HFA = 19 males; 2 females

     ∞ C = 19 males; 2 females

•  cognitive skills:  

     ∞ HFA 

     Full Scale = 118.25 (mean)

     Verbal IQ = 117.0 (mean)

     Performance IQ = 116.05 (mean)

     ∞ C = 

     Full Scale = 116.81 (mean)

     Verbal IQ = 116.62 (mean)

     Performance IQ = 112.76 (mean)

•  receptive language (PPVT- III): 

     ∞ HFA = 115.33 (mean)

     ∞ C = 116.90 (mean)

–  Were the groups similar? Yes. HFA and Control groups were matched on gender, Full scale IQ (FSIQ), Verbal IQ (VIQ), and Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test- III (PPVT III).

–  Were the communication problems adequately described? No

•  disorder type:  (List)  Ps with HFA were described as preforming at or above average on standardized language tests but exhibiting social-communication challenges.

5.  What were the different conditions for this research?

•  Subject (Classification) Groups? Yes 

     – HFA 

     – C

•  Experimental Conditions? NA

•  Criterion/Descriptive Conditions? NA

6.   Were the groups controlled acceptably? Yes

7.  Were dependent measures appropriate and meaningful? Yes 

•  OUTCOME #1: average standard deviation (SD) of the fundamental frequency (F0) for each 250 ms segmnt

•  OUTCOME #2: average F0 across the entire narrative

•  OUTCOME #3: average number of clauses for the entire narrative

– The dependent measure that was subjective

     •  OUTCOME #3: average number of clauses

– The dependent/ outcome measures that were objective

     •  OUTCOME #1: average SD of the F0 

     •  OUTCOME #2: average F0

8.  Were reliability measures provided?

–  Interobserver for analyzers? No  

  Intraobserver for analyzers?  No 

–  Treatment or test administration fidelity for investigators?  No 

9.  Description of design: 

• The Ps individually viewed a cartoon in which, for the most part, the characters were nonverbal. In a few instances, however, characters produced an exclamation.

• Ps viewed one-third of the cartoon and then immediately retold it to a person who reportedly had not viewed the cartoon.

• The samples were recorded, digitalized, and then acoustically analyzed. Each sample was divided into 250 ms portions. The metrics derived across the samples were

     – the average of the SDs of the F0 across each 250 ms P’s sample

     – the average F0 across each P’s 3 samples

     – the average number of clauses 

10.  What were the results of the statistical (inferential) testing?

– Comparisons that are listed as significant achieved p ≤ 0.05):

•  OUTCOME #1: average standard deviation (SD) of the fundamental frequency (F0)  for each 250 ms segment

     – Ps in the HFA group produced significantly larger SDs than the Control group. That is, HFA pitch ranges were significantly wider than Controls. 

•  OUTCOME #2: average F0 across the entire narrative

     – There were no significant differences in the comparisons between the HFA and Control groups. 

•  OUTCOME #3: average number of clauses for the entire narrative

     – The HFA group produced significantly shorter P(i.e., fewer clauses) narratives than the Control group.

–  What was the statistical test used to determine significance?  ANOVA

–  Were effect sizes provided?  Yes. Interpretation Hints for partial eta squared (eta):  .01 small effect, .06 is medium effect, and .14 is large effect.

     •  OUTCOME #1: average standard deviation (SD) of the fundamental frequency (F0)  for each 250 ms segment; Partial Eta squared (Eta) =  0.11 (medium effect)

     •  OUTCOME #2: average F0 across the entire narrative; Eta = 0.05 (small effect)

     •  OUTCOME #3: average number of clauses for the entire narrative; Eta = 0.10 (medium effect)

  Were confidence interval (CI) provided?  No

11.  Summary of correlational results:  

•  OUTCOME #1: average SD of the F0 for each 250 ms segment was correlated with performance on the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule (ADOS) Communication factor score. The results indicated that there was a significant (p ≤ 0.05) correlation between the 2 measures (r = 0.43).

12.  Summary of descriptive results:  Qualitative research. NA

13.  Brief summary of clinically relevant results:  

• As a group, the adolescent Ps with HFA produced significantly wider pitch ranges than Controls. The investigators, however, warn that these findings are not conclusive because there was considerable overlap between the SDs of the 2 groups.

• For the HFA group, the SDs of the F0s was correlated with clinical judgments of communication skill (i.e., performance on the ADOS).

ASSIGNED GRADE FOR QUALITY OF EXTERNAL EVIDENCE:  NA

STUDY 2

1.  What type of evidence was identified? 

• What was the type of design?  Comparison Research

• What was the focus of the research? Clinically Related

• What was the level of support associated with the type of evidence?  Level = NA

2.  Group membership determination: 

• If there were groups, were participants randomly assigned to groups? 

• If there were groups and Ps were not randomly assigned to groups, were members of groups carefully matched? Yes

3.  Were experimental conditions concealed?

•  from participants? No 

•  from administrators of experimental conditions? No 

•  from analyzers/judges? No

4.  Were the groups adequately described? Yes

–   How many participants were involved in the study? 

•  total # of Ps: 34

•  # of groups: 

     – HFA = 17

     – Control = 17

•  Did all groups maintain membership throughout the investigation? 

CONTROLLED CHARACTERISTICS                                                      

•  age: Ps were younger than Study 1 between the ages of 6 to 14

•  cognitive skills: Although Ps cognitive skills were still within normal limits (WNL) they were lower than Study 1

• diagnosis: ASD or Asperger syndrome

DESCRIBED CHARACTERISTICS

•  age:  

     – HFA = 8.81 (mean)

     – Control = 9.49 (mean)

•  gender: 

     – HFA =  13 males, 4 females

     – Control = 12 males; 5 females

•  cognitive skills:  

     – HFA = Composite IQ = 104 (mean); verbal reasoning = 104.8 (mean)

     – Control = Composite IQ = 107.71 (mean); verbal reasoning = 105 (mean)

•  expressive language:  

     – HFA = 100.47 (mean)

     – Control = 102.35 (mean)

•  receptive language: 

     – HFA = 103.35 (mean)

     – Control = 102.12 (mean)

•  diagnosis: 

     – HFA = 15 Ps diagnosed as ASD; 2 diagnosed as Asperger syndrome

     – Control = neurotypical; no history of mental retardation, learning disability, language delay, psychiatric disorders; no history of ASD in first and second degree family members

– Were the groups similar? Yes Matched HFA and Control groups on age, gender, expressive and receptive language scores, composite and verbal reasoning on cognitive tests.

–  Were the communication problems adequately described? No  

5.  What were the different conditions for this research?

  Subject (Classification) Groups? 

     – HFA

     – Control 

  Experimental Conditions? No 

•  Criterion/Descriptive Conditions? No  

6.   Were the groups controlled acceptably? Yes 

7.  Were dependent measures appropriate and meaningful? Yes           

•  OUTCOME #1: average SD of the F0) for each 250 ms segment

•  OUTCOME #2: average F0 across the entire narrative

•  OUTCOME #3: average number of clauses for the entire narrative

– The dependent measure that was subjective was

•  OUTCOME #3: average number of clauses for the entire narrative

 The dependent/ outcome measures that were objective were

•  OUTCOME #1: average standard deviation (SD) of the fundamental frequency (F0) for each 250 ms segment

•  OUTCOME #2: average F0 across the entire narrative

8.  Were reliability measures provided?

 Interobserver for analyzers? No

• Intraobserver for analyzers? No  

• Treatment or test administration fidelity for investigators? No

9.  Description of design: 

• The Ps individually viewed and listened to a recorded reading of the picture book Frog Where Are You?

• The investigators instructed the Ps to listen to the story while they were out of the room and to be prepared to retell the story when the investigator returned. 

• The samples were recorded, digitalized, and then acoustically analyzed. Each sample was divided into 250 ms portions. The metrics derived across the samples were

     – the average of the standard deviations (SD)s of the fundamental frequencies (F0) across each 250 ms P’s sample

     – the average F0 across each P’s 3 samples

     – the average number of clauses 

10.  What were the results of the statistical (inferential) testing?

– Comparisons listed as significant achieved p ≤ 0.05

     •  OUTCOME #1: average standard deviation (SD) of the fundamental frequency (F0)  for each 250 ms segment—The Ps in the HFA groups produced significantly larger SD than the Control group Ps. That is, the variability of the F0 of the Ps in the HFA group was significantly larger.

     •  OUTCOME #2: average F0 across the entire narrative—There was not a significant difference in the productions of the HFA and Control groups.

     •  OUTCOME #3: average number of clauses for the entire narrative– There was not a significant difference in the productions of the HFA and Control groups.

– What was the statistical test used to determine significance? ANOVA

– Were effect sizes provided?   Yes 

Interpretation Hints: 

–  Cohen’s (1988) guidelines for interpreting partial eta squared (eta):  .01 small, .06  medium, and .14 large.

     •  OUTCOME #1: average SD of the F0 for each 250 ms segment; Eta =  0.18 (large effect)

     •  OUTCOME #2: average F0 across the entire narrative; Eta = 0.004 (negligible effect)

     •  OUTCOME #3: average number of clauses for the entire narrative; Eta = 0.08 (medium effect)

–  Were confidence interval (CI) provided? No

1

1.  Summary of correlational results:  

•  OUTCOME #1: average SD of the F0 for each 250 ms segment was correlated with performance on the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule (ADOS) Communication factor score. The results indicated that there was not a significant correlation between the 2 measures (r = 0.16).

12.  Summary of descriptive results:  Qualitative research. NA

13.  Brief summary of clinically relevant results:  

 The findings of this investigation support previous reports that young children with HFA produce more variation in F0 than neurotypical peers. This variability is not diagnostic because there was overlap between the HFA and the Control groups and not all HFA participants produced speech that was highly variable. 

ASSIGNED GRADE FOR QUALITY OF EXTERNAL EVIDENCE:  NA

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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: