Comparison of Speech Intelligibility in the Expression of Words and Sentences in Persian-Speaking Children in Ghaemshahr City

Document Type : Original article

Authors

1 MSc Student in Speech Therapy, School of Rehabilitation, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

2 MSc in Speech Therapy, Lecturer, Department of Speech Therapy, School of Rehabilitation, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

3 PhD in Speech Therapy, Assistant Professor, Department of Speech Therapy, School of Rehabilitation, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

4 PhD in Health Education, Associate Professor, Department of Rehabilitation Management, School of Rehabilitation, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

5 MSc in Occupational Therapy, Instructor, Department of Occupational Therapy, School of Paramedical and Health, Zanjan University of Medical Sciences, Zanjan, Iran

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. Weismer G. Speech Intelligibility. In: Ball MJ, Perkins MR, Muller N, Howard S, editors.The Handbook of Clinical Linguistics. Oxford. Blackwell Publishers;2008.p:265-268.##
  2. Pascoe M,Stuackhouse J,Wells B.Persisting speech Difficulties in Children.3th ed.Canada:Wiley:2006.p:273-303. ##
  3. Weismer G. Motor Speech disorder . United States : Plural Publishing ; 2007.p: 265-267. ##
  4. Kempler D, Van Lancker D.Effect of speech task on intelligibility in dysarthria: a case study of Parkinson's disease. Brain and language. 2002;80(3):449-64. ##
  5. Hustad KC.Effects of speech stimuli and dysarthria severity on intelligibility scores and listener confidence ratings for speakers with cerebral palsy. Folia Phoniatr Logop.2007;59(6):306-17. ##
  6. Van Lierde KM, Luyten A, Van Borsel J, Baudonck N, Debusschere T, Vermeersch H, Bonte K. Speech intelligibility of children with unilateral cleft lip and palate (Dutch cleft) following a one-stage Wardill–Kilner palatoplasty, as judged by their parents. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2010;39(7):641–6. ##
  7. Barreto SS, Ortiz KZ. Intelligibility: effects of transcription analysis and speech stimulus. Pro-Fono Revista de Atualizacao Cientifica. 2010;22(2):125-32. ##
  8. Sidtis D, Cameron K, Bonura L, Sidtis JJ. Speech intelligibility by listening in Parkinson speech with and without deep brain stimulation: task effects. Journal of Neurolinguistics.   2012;25(2):121-32. ##
  9. Ghasisin L, Ghacemi A, Mubed F, Hassanzadeh A. Speech intelligibility of 4 to 5 years old persian language speaking. J Res Rehab Sci. 2009;5(1):19-22. ##

 

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. ##

The Scientific Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine
Volume 6, Issue 4
January and February 2018
Pages 91-98

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 16 November 2016
  • Revise Date: 09 January 2017
  • Accept Date: 12 February 2017
  • First Publish Date: 22 December 2017

Share

How to cite

Statistics