Lenden & Flipsen (2007)

August 26, 2015

NATURE OF PROSODIC DISORDERS

ANALYSIS FORM

 

Key:

 

CA = chronological age

CI = Cochlear Implant

HA = Hearing Age

HI = hearing impaired

NA = not applicable

P = participant

PIA = Post-Implantation Age

pmh = Patricia Hargrove, blog developer

PVSP = Prosody-Voice Screening Profile

 

SOURCE: Lenden, J. M., & Flipsen Jr., P. (2007). Prosody and voice characteristics of children with cochlear implants. Journal of Communication Disorders, 40, 66-81.

 

REVIEWER(S): pmh

 

DATE: August 24, 2015

ASSIGNED GRADE FOR OVERALL QUALITY: C+ (The highest grade for this type of design is C+.)

 

POPULATION: Cochlear Implants, Hearing Impairment; Children

 

PURPOSE: To identify aspects of prosody and voice that are problematic for children with cochlear implants (CI) and developmental trends relevant to prosody and voice.

 

INSIGHTS ABOUT PROSODY:

  • In this longitudinal investigation, the children with CI did not display problems with phrasing and pitch noted in children with hearing impairment (HI). Children with CIs and problems with Phrasing and Pitch might warrant special attention in therapy.
  • Resonance and stress continued to be problematic for most children with CI and did not improve with age. Accordingly, they may be aspects of voice/prosody that clinicians focus attention on in intervention.
  • The investigators noted that the number of participants (Ps) was small and that further research is needed.
  • The investigators recommended that the Prosody-Voice Screening Profile (PVSP) be considered in long-term monitoring of the prosody and voice of children with HI.

 

 

  1. What type of evidence was identified? Longitudinal Research
  1. Group membership determination:
  • If there were groups of participants were members of groups matched? Not applicable (NA.) There was only one group.
  1. Was participants’ communication status concealed?
  • from participants? No

                                                                    

  • from assessment administrators? No

                                                                    

  • from data analyzers? Yes, raters were presented with samples in random order to avoid bias (relative to change over time.)

                                                                    

 

  1. Were the participants adequately described? Yes

How many participants were involved in the study? 6

  • total # of participants: 6
  • was group membership maintained throughout the experiment? Yes
  • # of groups: 1
  • # of participants in the group: 6

 

– The following variables were controlled:

  • hearing status: Prelingually deaf (mean age of identification = 8 months; range 0 to 15 months)
  • time since CI: at least 18 months
  • language modality: spoken language only as primary mode of communication
  • receptive language: Receptive Vocabulary is within 2 standard deviations of the mean for P’s chronological age (CA); Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test III—mean standard score 82.3 months; range 72 months to 99 months

 

– The following variables were controlled described:

  • age at beginning of investigation: mean 5 years; range 3 years, 9 months to 6 years, 2 months
  • gender: 1m; 5f
  • cognitive skills: no known disability
  • mean time (hearing aid use + CI) amplified at the beginning of the investigation: mean 4 years, 4 months; range 2 years, 10 months to 5 years, 3 months
  • age of implantation: mean 28 months; range 20 months to 3 years
  • cause of hearing impairment (HI): unknown (5); partial agenesis of the cochlea (1)
  • physical skills: no known disability
  • emotional status: no known disability
  • implant type: Clarion (2); Nucleus 24 (2); Nucleus 22 (1)
  • intervention: all received prior intervention; oral mode was the focus of the interventions; interventions continued for all participants (Ps) throughout the investigation
  • educational level of clients: all in regular classrooms

 

– Were the communication problems adequately described? No. The investigators were vague about the general level of expressive and receptive language of the Ps but the Ps were capable of some conversational speech.  

 

  1. What were the different conditions for this research?

– Subject (Classification) Groups? Yes. All the Ps all were prelingually deaf.

                                                               

– Experimental Conditions? No

 

– Criterion/Descriptive Conditions? Yes– Ratings of conversational samples on the Prosody-Voice Screening Profile (PVSP).

 

  1. Were the groups controlled acceptably? NA

 

 

  1. Were dependent measures appropriate and meaningful? Yes

– The dependent measures were

  • Dependent Measure #1: Ratings on the Phrasing section of the PVSP
  • Dependent Measure #2: Ratings on the Rate section of the PVSP
  • Dependent Measure #3: Ratings on the Stress section of the PVSP
  • Dependent Measure #4: Ratings on the Loudness section of the PVSP
  • Dependent Measure #5: Ratings on the Pitch section of the PVSP
  • Dependent Measure #6: Ratings on the Laryngeal Quality section of the PVSP
  • Dependent Measure #7: Ratings on the Resonance Quality section of the PVSP
  • Dependent Measure #8: Relationship between measures of the PVSP and 3 age variables: Chronological Ages (CA), Hearing Age (HA), and Post-Implantation Age (PIA)
  • Dependent Measure #9: Changes with age on ratings on the PVSP

All of the dependent measures were subjective.

None of the dependent/ outcome measures were objective.

                                         

 

  1. Were reliability measures provided?

Interobserver for analyzers? No

 

– Intraobserver for analyzer?   Yes

  • Dependent Measure #1: Ratings on the Phrasing section of the PVSP = 100%
  • Dependent Measure #2: Ratings on the Rate section of the PVSP = 92%
  • Dependent Measure #3: Ratings on the Stress section of the PVSP = 83%
  • Dependent Measure #4: Ratings on the Loudness section of the PVSP = 95%
  • Dependent Measure #5: Ratings on the Pitch section of the PVSP = 94%
  • Dependent Measure #6: Ratings on the Laryngeal Quality section of the PVSP = 92%
  • Dependent Measure #7: Ratings on the Resonance Quality section of the PVSP = 85%
  • Overall PVSP score: 92%

Treatment/Procedural fidelity for investigators? No

 

  1. Description of design:
  • This longitudinal investigation involved 6 children with CIs.
  • Spontaneous samples of conversational speech were elicited every 3 months for time ranges varying from 12 to 21 months.
  • The prosody and voice characteristics of the Ps’ speech was determined from the samples that were analyzed using the PVSP.
  • The results were presented primarily using descriptive and correlational statistics as well as descriptions of developmental trends.

 

  1. What were the results of the inferential statistical testing? The only inferential testing mentioned in the manuscript was when correlations were reported for correlations. Those results will be presented in the correlational statistical testing section of this review.

 

 

  1. What were the results of the correlational statistical testing?

 

  • The relationships between measures of the PVSP and 3 age variables (CA, HA, PIA) were explored in 2 ways: (1) by correlating the combined PVSP and age scores of all 6 Ps and (2) ) by correlating the combined PVSP and age scores of only 5 Ps. (One set of P data were omitted because of the possibility of the child being a high performing outlier.)
  • The significant correlations ( p ≤ 0.05) were

–Ratings on the Stress section of the PVSP

  • stress ratings and HA for the 5 member set of Ps: r = 0.354
  • stress ratings and PIA for the 5 member set of Ps: r = 0.341

 

Rating of the Laryngeal Quality section of the PVSP

  • laryngeal quality ratings and CA for all 5 and 6 member sets: for 5 member set r = 0.554 and for 6 member set r = 0.421
  • laryngeal quality ratings and HA for all 5 and 6 member sets: :   for 5 member set r = 0.562 and for 6 member set r = 0.528
  • laryngeal quality ratings and PIA for all 5 and 6 member sets: :   for 5 member set r = 0.571 and for 6 member set r = 0.382

Rating of the Resonance Quality section of the PVSP

  • resonance quality and PIA: for the 5 member set r= 0.335
  • The investigators interpreted the correlations to indicate that at least for Stress, Laryngeal Quality, and Resonance Quality performance tended to improve with age.
  • What was the statistical test used to determine correlation? Not provided

 

  1. What were the results of the descriptive analysis
  • The investigators provided pooled data representing correct scores on the PVSP.
  • In line with the PVSP protocol, they also provided data describing the number of samples (remember each P is represented by multiple samples) in which P’s performance was classified as passed, borderline, or failed.

Dependent Measure #1: Ratings on the Phrasing section of the PVSP: 97% appropriate; 36 Ps passed; 4 borderline; 0 failed

 

Dependent Measure #2: Ratings on the Rate section of the PVSP: 88% appropriate; 22 Ps passed; 13borderline; 5 failed

Dependent Measure #3: Ratings on the Stress section of the PVSP: 48% appropriate; 2 Ps passed; 5 borderline; 33 failed

Dependent Measure #4: Ratings on the Loudness section of the PVSP: 92% appropriate; 32 Ps passed; 2 borderline; 6 failed

Dependent Measure #5: Ratings on the Pitch section of the PVSP: 98% appropriate; 38 Ps passed; 2 borderline; 0 failed

Dependent Measure #6: Ratings on the Laryngeal Quality section of the PVSP: 87% appropriate; 24 Ps passed; 7 borderline; 9 failed

Dependent Measure #7: Ratings on the Resonance Quality section of the PVSP: 10% appropriate; 0 Ps passed; 1 borderline; 39 failed

  • The investigators also described the changes in performance of individuals over time.

Dependent Measure #9: Changes with age on ratings on the PVSP

–   All Ps performed appropriately for the Phrasing and Pitch Sections of the PVSP.

– 4 of the 6 Ps did not improve on the Stress Section of the PVSP with performance remaining unacceptable throughout the investigation. However, 2 of the Ps appeared to improve.

– 5 of the 6 Ps did not evidence problems Loudness and their performance level remained stable. The remaining P did have a reduced score and did improve. The improvement seemed to be more related to the comfort level of the P and it was suspected that the initial poor score was not a problem.

–3 of the 6 Ps produced stable and relatively appropriate Laryngeal Quality during the investigation. One P was unstable at the beginning of the investigation and the other 2 Ps showed a tendency to improve

– 4 of the 6 Ps produced stable but inappropriate Resonance Quality throughout the investigation. One P showed improvement during the investigation. The remaining P started to improve and then performance regressed.


Diehl & Paul (2013)

July 18, 2015

NATURE OF PROSODIC DISORDERS

ANALYSIS FORM

 

Key:

 

ASD = Autism spectrum disorders

CA = chronological age

LD = Learning disability

NA = not applicable

P = participant(s)

PEPS-C = Profiling Elements of Prosodic Systems in Children

pmh = Patricia Hargrove, blog developer

SD = standard deviation

SS = Standard Score

TD = typically developing

 

 

SOURCE: Diehl, J. J., & Paul, R. (2013). Acoustic and perceptual measurements of prosody production on the Profiling Elements of Prosodic Systems in Children by children with autism spectrum disorders. Applied Psycholinguistics, 34, 135-161.

 

REVIEWER(S): pmh

 

DATE: July 11, 2015

ASSIGNED GRADE FOR OVERALL QUALITY: B+ (The highest possible grade, based on the design of the investigation, was B+.)

 

POPULATION: Autism spectrum disorders (ASD); Learning disability (LD)

 

PURPOSE: To investigate the prosody production (and to a lesser extent comprehension) of children with ASD, children with LD, and typically developing (TD) children using acoustic and perceptual measures of prosody.

 

INSIGHTS ABOUT PROSODY:

  • Comparisons of participant (P) groups on the subtests of the Profiling Elements of Prosodic Systems in Children (PEPS-C) revealed that the Ps with ASD and LD struggled with prosodic comprehension of affect, turn ends/terminal contour, and focus/stress but not chunking/phrasing. In addition, Ps with LD struggled with the production of accurate chunking/phrasing. The specific results are listed below:

– For the comprehension of affect subtest, the TD Ps performed significantly better than Ps with ASD or LD.

– For the production of affect subtest, the scores did not differ significantly for the 3 groups (ASD, LD, TD.)

– For the comprehension of turn ends/terminal contour subtest, TD Ps performed significantly better than Ps with ASD or LD.

– For the production of turn ends/terminal contour subtest, the scores did not differ significantly for the 3 groups.

– For the comprehension of chunking/phrasing subtest, the scores did not differ significantly for the 3 groups.

– For the production of chunking/phrasing subtest, the Ps with LD performed significantly more poorly than the Ps with ASD and the TD peers.

– For the comprehension of focus/stress subtest, the TD Ps performed significantly better than Ps with ASD or LD.

– For the production of focus/stress subtest, the scores did not differ significantly for the 3 groups (ASD, LD, TD.)

  • The prosodic productions of the Ps also were measured acoustically.

– As a group, the Ps with ASD displayed significant differences from the TD on the following:

  • longer duration of utterances for affect (conveying dislike) and turn-end/terminal contour tasks.
  • louder intensity for stress/focus task.
  • wider average f0 range for focus/stress task
  • larger SD of f0 during focus/stress task
  • On several expressive prosodic tasks, the Ps with LD produced prosody that differed significantly from the TD peers:
  • lower average f0 for turn ends/terminal contour, chunking/phrasing, and focus/stress tasks.
  • longer duration for turn-end/terminal contour
  • Because the intent of Ps and ASD were regularly interpreted by judges as correct, the findings may be interpreted as indicating that most Ps with ASD or LD can convey meaning using prosody. However, at times their productions are atypical.

 

 

  1. What type of evidence was identified? Prospective, Nonrandomized Group Comparison Design
  1. Group membership determination:

 

  • If there were groups of participants were members of groups matched? Yes

                                                                    

  • The matching strategy involved

The TD group and ASD and LD groups were matched on chronological age (CA).

–  The participants (Ps) with LD and ASD were matched on CA, nonverbal IQ, CELF-4 core, and receptive language scores,

  1. Was participants’ communication status concealed?
  • from participants? No
  • from assessment administrators? No
  • from data analyzers? Unclear

                                                                    

 

  1. Were the groups adequately described? Yes

How many participants were involved in the study?

  • total # of participants: 62
  • was group membership maintained throughout the experiment? Yes
  • # of groups: 3
  • List names of groups:

– TD (Typically developing)

– LD (Learning disability)

– ASD (Autism spectrum disorder)

  • # of participants in each group:

– TD = 22

– LD = 16

– ASD = 24

 

The following variables were CONTROLLED

 

  • neurological status: neurological problems excluded
  • vision: visual loss excluded, if uncorrected
  • hearing: hearing loss excluded
  • diagnosis:

All ASD Ps had been diagnosed with ASD (autism, Asperger’s syndrome, or PPD-NOS);

     – All LD Ps showed no sign of ASD and there were no reports of first degree family members with ASD;

     – For the TD group, the parents reported typical development; there were no reports of first degree family members with ASD or no previous diagnoses of development disability; and TD Ps were in the appropriate grade in school

– The following variables were DESCRIBED

  • age: mean age ASD group = 12.31; mean age LD group = 12.99; mean age TD group = 12.21
  • gender: ASD = 16m, 8f; LD = 12m, 4f; TD = 15m, 7f
  • nonverbal IQ: ASD = 103.61; LD = 96.85 (difference was not significant); TD—not reported
  • core language on CELF-4: ASD = 97.21; LD = 88.94: TD—not reported
  • expressive language on CELF-4: ASD = 100.54; LD = 90.00 (difference was significant); TD not reported
  • receptive language: ASD = 93.67; LD = 88.73; (difference was significant); TD not reported
  • learning disability: based on parent report of the LD group—5 Ps with reading disability, 11 Ps with language-based learning disability
  • Were the communication problems adequately described? Yes

– Communication disorder descriptions:

 

ASD

     – The Standard Score (SS) for the Core CELF-4 for the ASD group

  • ranged from 67-132
  • mean was 97.21

     – The SS for the Receptive Language CELF-4 for the ASD group

  • ranged from 58-121
  • mean was 93.67

– The SS for the Expressive Language CELF-4 for the ASD group

  • ranged from 75-126
  • mean was 100.54
  • This was significantly higher than the LD group.

LD

     – The SS for the Core CELF-4 for the LD group

  • ranged from 60-117
  • mean was 88.94

     – The Standard SS for the Receptive Language CELF-4 for the LD group

  • ranged from 58-119
  • mean was 88.73

– The SS for the Expressive Language CELF-4 for the LD group

  • ranged from 65-114
  • mean was 90.00
  • This was significantly lower than the ASD group.

 

  1. What were the different conditions for this research?

                                                                                                             

– Subject (Classification) Groups? Yes

  • There were 3 subject groups:

     – ASD

     – LD

     – TD

                                                               

– Experimental Conditions? No

 Criterion/Descriptive Conditions? Yes. Performance on the Profiling Elements of Prosodic Systems in Children (PEPS-C)

 

  1. Were the groups controlled acceptably? Yes

 

 

  1. Were dependent measures appropriate and meaningful? Yes

 

The dependent measures were

  • Dependent Measure #1: To comprehend affect signaled by prosody (number correct)

 

  • Dependent Measure #2: To express correctly affect using prosody (number correct perceptually)

 

  • Dependent Measure #3: Expression of prosodic affect of all liking food items as measured by

– average f0

– f0 standard deviation

– f0 variability/range

– intensity of utterance

– duration of utterance

 

  • Dependent Measure #4: Expression of prosodic affect of all not liking food items as measured by

– average f0

– f0 standard deviation

– f0 variability/range

– intensity of utterance

– duration of utterance

 

  • Dependent Measure #5: Expression of prosodic affect of all and correct only liking food items as measured by

– average f0

– f0 standard deviation

– f0 variability/range

– intensity of utterance

– duration of utterance

  • Dependent Measure #6: Expression of prosodic affect of correct not liking food items as measured by

– average f0

– f0 standard deviation

– f0 variability/range

– intensity of utterance

– duration of utterance

 

  • Dependent Measure #7: To comprehend when sentences contained prosody signifying question asking (correct responses)

 

  • Dependent Measure #8: To express statements and questions using prosody (perceptually measured)

 

  • Dependent Measure #9: Prosodic expression of all questions as measured by

– average f0

– f0 standard deviation

– f0 variability/range

– intensity of utterance

– duration of utterance

 

  • Dependent Measure #10: Prosodic expression of correct questions as measured by

– average f0

– f0 standard deviation

– f0 variability/range

– intensity of utterance

– duration of utterance

 

  • Dependent Measure #11: Prosodic expression of all statements as measured by

– average f0

– f0 standard deviation

– f0 variability/range

– intensity of utterance

– duration of utterance

 

  • Dependent Measure #12: Prosodic expression of correct statements as measured by

– average f0

– f0 standard deviation

– f0 variability/range

– intensity of utterance

– duration of utterance

  • Dependent Measure #13: To comprehend prosodic chunking (correct responses)

 

  • Dependent Measure #14: To produce accurate prosodic chunking (correct responses)

 

  • Dependent Measure #15: Prosodic expression of chunking of all subtest items as measured by

– average f0

– f0 standard deviation

– f0 variability/range

– intensity of utterance

– duration of utterance

 

  • Dependent Measure #16: Prosodic expression of chunking of correct subtest items as measured by

– average f0

– f0 standard deviation

– f0 variability/range

– intensity of utterance

– duration of utterance

 

  • Dependent Measure #17: To comprehend prosodic stress/focus (correct responses)

 

  • Dependent Measure #18: To express stress/focus prosodically (correct responses)
  • Dependent Measure #19: Prosodic expression of stress/focus of all subtest items as measured by

– average f0

– f0 standard deviation

– f0 variability/range

– intensity of utterance

– duration of utterance

 

  • Dependent Measure #20: Prosodic expression of stress/focus of correct subtest items as measured by

– average f0

– f0 standard deviation

– f0 variability/range

– intensity of utterance

– duration of utterance

The dependent measures that were subjective were

  • Dependent Measure #1: To comprehend samples of prosodic affect (number correct)
  • Dependent Measure #2: To express correctly affect using prosody (number correct perceptually)
  • Dependent Measure #7: To comprehend when sentences contained prosody signifying question asking (correct responses)
  • Dependent Measure #8: To express statements and questions using prosody (perceptually measured)
  • Dependent Measure #13: To comprehend prosodic chunking (correct responses)
  • Dependent Measure #14: To produce accurate prosodic chunking (correct responses)
  • Dependent Measure #17: To comprehend prosodic stress/focus (correct responses)
  • Dependent Measure #18: To express stress/focus prosodically (correct responses)

–   The dependent/ outcome measures that were objective are

 

  • Dependent Measure #3: Expression of prosodic affect of all liking food items as measured by

– average f0

– f0 standard deviation

– f0 variability/range

– intensity of utterance

– duration of utterance

  • Dependent Measure #4: Expression of prosodic affect of all not liking food items as measured by

– average f0

– f0 standard deviation

– f0 variability/range

– intensity of utterance

– duration of utterance

  • Dependent Measure #5: Expression of prosodic affect of all and correct only liking food items as measured by

– average f0

– f0 standard deviation

– f0 variability/range

– intensity of utterance

– duration of utterance

  • Dependent Measure #6: Expression of prosodic affect of correct not liking food items as measured by

– average f0

– f0 standard deviation

– f0 variability/range

– intensity of utterance

– duration of utterance

  • Dependent Measure #9: Prosodic expression of all questions as measured by

– average f0

– f0 standard deviation

– f0 variability/range

– intensity of utterance

– duration of utterance

  • Dependent Measure #10: Prosodic expression of correct questions as measured by

– average f0

– f0 standard deviation

– f0 variability/range

– intensity of utterance

– duration of utterance

  • Dependent Measure #11: Prosodic expression of all statements as measured by

– average f0

– f0 standard deviation

– f0 variability/range

– intensity of utterance

– duration of utterance

  • Dependent Measure #12: Prosodic expression of correct statements as measured by

– average f0

– f0 standard deviation

– f0 variability/range

– intensity of utterance

– duration of utterance

  • Dependent Measure #15: Prosodic expression of chunking of all subtest items as measured by

– average f0

– f0 standard deviation

– f0 variability/range

– intensity of utterance

– duration of utterance

  • Dependent Measure #16: Prosodic expression of chunking of correct subtest items as measured by

– average f0

– f0 standard deviation

– f0 variability/range

– intensity of utterance

– duration of utterance

  • Dependent Measure #19: Prosodic expression of stress/focus of all subtest items as measured by

– average f0

– f0 variability/range

– f0 standard deviation

– intensity of utterance

– duration of utterance

  • Dependent Measure #20: Prosodic expression of stress/focus of correct subtest items as measured by

– average f0

– f0 standard deviation

– f0 variability/range

– intensity of utterance

– duration of utterance

                                         

 

  1. Were reliability measures provided?

                                                                                                            

– Interobserver for analyzers? Yes

  • Average overall interrater reliability for combined combined Dependent Measures #2 was 0.88. (As a reminder, Dependent Measures #2 is listed below.)

– Dependent Measure #2: To express correctly affect using prosody (number correct perceptually)

 Intraobserver for analyzers? No

 

– Treatment/Procedural fidelity for investigators? No

 

 

  1. Description of design:
  • This investigation involved a prospective, nonrandom comparison design.
  • There were 3 groups of Ps:

– ASD

– LD

– TD

  • All 3 groups were administered the PEPS-C.
  • The dependent measures involved

– perceptual judgments of correction on and production subtests of the PEPS-C

– acoustic analysis of the production subtests.

  • The acoustic analyses comprised:

– average f0

– standard deviation of f0

– f0 range

– utterance duration

– utterance intensity

 

  1. What were the results of the inferential statistical testing?

– The comparisons are significant presented with p ≤ 0.05.

  • Dependent Measure #1: To comprehend affect using prosody (number correct): TD was significantly better than ASD and LD
  • Dependent Measure #2: To express correctly affect using prosody (number correct perceptually): No significant differences
  • Dependent Measure #3: Expression of prosodic affect of all liking food items as measured by the 5 variables: No significant differences
  • Dependent Measure #4: Expression of prosodic affect of all not liking food items as measured by the 5 variables: No significant differences
  • Dependent Measure #5: Expression of prosodic affect of all and correct liking food items as measured by the 5 variables: No significant differences
  • Dependent Measure #6: Expression of prosodic affect of correct not liking food items as measured by

– average f0

– f0 standard deviation:

– f0 variability/range

– intensity of utterance

– duration of utterance: The ASD group produced significantly longer utterances than the LD group and the TD group.

  • Dependent Measure #7: To comprehend when sentences contained prosody signifying question asking (correct responses): TD was significantly better than ASD and LD
  • Dependent Measure #8: To express statements and questions using prosody (perceptually measured): No significant differences:
  • Dependent Measure #9: Prosodic expression of all questions as measured by

– average f0: The LD group produced significantly lower average f0 and the TD group

– f0 standard deviation:

– f0 variability/range:

– intensity of utterance

– duration of utterance: The Ps with ASD produced significantly longer utterances than the TD peers.

  • Dependent Measure #10: Prosodic expression of correct questions as measured by

– average f0: : The LD group produced significantly lower average f0 and the TD group

– f0 standard deviation:

– f0 variability/range

– intensity of utterance

– duration of utterance

  • Dependent Measure #11: Prosodic expression of all statements as measured by

– average f0

– f0 standard deviation:

– f0 variability/range

– intensity of utterance

– duration of utterance: Ps with ASD produced significantly longer utterances than Ps with LD and those with TD. The Ps with LD produced significantly longer utterances than TD peers.

  • Dependent Measure #12: Prosodic expression of correct statements as measured by

– average f0: The LD group produced significantly lower average f0 and the TD group

– f0 standard deviation:

– f0 variability/range

– intensity of utterance

– duration of utterance: Ps with ASD produced significantly longer utterances than Ps with LD and those with TD. The Ps with LD produced significantly longer utterances than TD peers.

  • Dependent Measure #13: To comprehend prosodic chunking/phrasing (correct responses) No significant differences
  • Dependent Measure #14: To produce accurate prosodic chunking/phasing (correct responses): The Ps with LD displayed significantly lower scores than Ps with ASD and the TD peers.
  • Dependent Measure #15: Prosodic expression of chunking of all subtest items as measured by

– average f0: Ps with LD produced significantly lower f0 than TD peers and Ps with ASD.

– f0 standard deviation

– f0 variability/range

– intensity of utterance

– duration of utterance

  • Dependent Measure #16: Prosodic expression of chunking of correct subtest items as measured by

– average f0: Ps with LD produced significantly lower f0 than TD peers and Ps with ASD.

– f0 standard deviation

– f0 variability/range

– intensity of utterance

– duration of utterance

  • Dependent Measure #17: To comprehend prosodic stress/focus (correct responses): The TD group exhibited significantly higher scores than the ASD and LD groups.
  • Dependent Measure #18: To express stress/focus prosodically (correct responses): No significant differences
  • Dependent Measure #19: Prosodic expression of stress/focus of all subtest items as measured by

– average f0: The LD group was significantly lower than the TD and ASD groups

– f0 standard deviation: The ASD and LD groups were significantly larger than the TF group

– f0 variability/range: Ps with ASD used a significantly wider range than TD.

– intensity of utterance

– duration of utterance

  • Dependent Measure #20: Prosodic expression of stress/focus of correct subtest items as measured by

– average f0: The LD group was significantly lower than the TD and ASD groups

– f0 standard deviation: The f0 SD was significantly smaller for the TD group than for the ASD group.

– f0 variability/range: The range of the ASD group was significantly larger range than the TD group.

– intensity of utterance: The Ps with ASD were significantly louder than the Ps with LD.

– duration of utterance

 

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

–   Were effect sizes provided? Yes. The effect sizes for significant comparisons ranged from 0.05 (small) to 0.25 (large).

– Were confidence intervals (CI) provided? No

 

 

  1. What were the results of the correlational statistical testing? There was no correlational analysis.

 

  1. What were the results of the descriptive analysis? The descriptive analysis was secondary to the inferential analysis.