نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
1 دانشجوی کارشناسی ارشد گفتاردرمانی، دانشکده توانبخشی، دانشگاه علوم پزشکی ایران، تهران، ایران
2 کارشناسی ارشد گفتاردرمانی، مربی، گروه گفتاردرمانی، دانشکده علوم توانبخشی، دانشگاه علوم پزشکی ایران، تهران، ایران
3 دکترای تخصصی گفتاردرمانی، استادیار، گروه گفتاردرمانی، دانشکده علوم توانبخشی، دانشگاه علوم پزشکی ایران، تهران، ایران
4 دکترای تخصصی آموزش بهداشت، دانشیار، گروه مدیریت توانبخشی، دانشکده علوم توانبخشی، دانشگاه علوم پزشکی ایران، تهران، ایران
5 کارشناسی ارشد کاردرمانی، مربی، گروه کاردرمانی، دانشکده بهداشت و پیراپزشکی، دانشگاه علوم پزشکی زنجان، زنجان، ایران
عنوان مقاله [English]
Background and Aim: In children's speech disorders, assessing the percentage index of speech intelligibility is important. Expression of single words and sentences in some ways, such as the effect of voices on eachother, is different, that may affect speech intelligibility. In the present study, attempts were made to answer the question whether the percentages of speech intelligibility are different in these two tests.
Materials and Methods: In the present cross-sectional study, 120 healthy children (60 girls and 60 boys) were chosen among all kindergartens in Ghaemshahr city, Iran. Children's speech samples were collected by means of calling pictures and repeating sentences. The voices were tape-recorded and children's speech intelligibility was studied in four age groups within six months. Comparison of the intelligibility of the two speech samples was carried out using Wilcoxon Tests and the correlation between children’s scores in the expression of words and sentences was determined using Spearman correlation.
Results: The mean score of the speech intelligibility was 94% (SD=10.66) in the words test and 96/02% (SD=9.65) in the sentence test. A significant difference was observed between age groups in both tests (α =0/05). Also, there was a significant correlation between the intelligibility of words and sentences (p=0.000). However, no statistically significant difference was found between boys and girls.
Conclusion: The significant difference found in the speech intelligibility percentages of words and sentence test shows that language and communication factors affecting the listener's understanding of others' speech are different. So, in measuring the speech intelligibility using these two tests, we should not expect similar results. Increase in the speech intelligibility percentage in sentence test may be due to the abundance of semantic clues, which can increase the listener's guessing capability.
10. Heydari S.Development of speech intelligibility measurement test for 3 to 5 years old normal children. Department of Speech Therapy, School of Rehabilitation Sciences, Iran University of Medical Sciences. 2010. ##
11. Valizadeh A.The speech intelligibility of normal Persian-speaking children and its changes during the age of 36 to 60 months.Department of Speech Therapy, School of Rehabilitation Sciences, Iran University of Medical Sciences. 2011. ##
12. Javadipour Sh.Comparison of Acoustic Features of High-Low vowels with Perceptual SpeechIntelligibility in Normal and Adults with Parkinson. Department of Speech Therapy, School of Rehabilitation Sciences, Iran University of Medical Sciences. 2011. ##
13. Darouie A. Comparison of Speech Intelligibility Evaluation Procedures in Persian Hearing Impaired Children. PhD. Dissertation. Tehran: University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation, Faculty of Speech Therapy, 2013. ##
14. Poursoroush S.Speech Intelligibility of Cochlear-Implanted and Normal-Hearing Children. Journal of Otorhinolaryngology.2015.p:18-21.
15. Weiss CE.Weiss intelligibility test. 1st ed. Tigard, OR: CC Publications; 1982. ##
16. Flipsen P.Measuring the intelligibility of conversational speech in children. JCLP. 2006;20(4):202-312 . ##
17. Gordon-Brannan M, Hodson B. Intelligibility/severity measurements of prekindergarten children's speech. AJSLP. 2000;9:141-150. ##
18. .Kent RD, Miolo G, Bloedel S. The intelligibility of children’s speech: a review of evaluation procedures. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology. 1994;3(2):81-95. ##