ArticleBrain sciences2022
The Reliability and Validity of Speech-Language Pathologists' Estimations of Intelligibility in Dysarthria.
Article in Brain sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Speech and Deep Brain Stimulation in Parkinson's Disease, Essential Tremor, and Dystonia: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Movement disorders : official journal of the Movement Disorder Society · 2026Pooled it
- Psychophysical and Psychometric Properties of Visual Analog Scales: An Auditory-Perceptual Study Applied to Hypokinetic Dysarthria.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2026Article
- Development of a Child Articulation Screening Test Within Digital Therapeutics: Delphi Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Variable Speech Cueing Effects in Talkers With Parkinson's Disease.American journal of speech-language pathology · 2026Article
- Preliminary Psychometric Review of Neurologists' Speech Ratings on the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale.American journal of speech-language pathology · 2026Article
- Reply to the letter by Triwiyanto.Journal of anesthesia · 2025Article
- Can We Trust Our Ears? How Accurate and Reliable Are Speech-Language Pathologists' Estimates of Children's Speech Intelligibility?American journal of speech-language pathology · 2025Article
- How to Efficiently Measure the Intelligibility of People With Parkinson's Disease.American journal of speech-language pathology · 2025Article
- Acoustic and Kinematic Predictors of Intelligibility and Articulatory Precision in Parkinson's Disease.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2024Article
- Does Native Language Matter in Perceptual Ratings of Dysarthria?Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2024Article
- Efficacy and feasibility of a digital speech therapy for post-stroke dysarthria: protocol for a randomized controlled trial.Frontiers in neurology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study examined the reliability and validity of speech-language pathologists' (SLP) estimations of speech intelligibility in dysarthria, including a visual analog scale (VAS) method and a percent estimation method commonly used in clinical settings. Speech samples from 20 speakers with dysarthria of varying etiologies were used to collect orthographic transcriptions from naïve listeners n=70 and VAS ratings and percent estimations of intelligibility from SLPs n=21. Intra- and interrater reliability for the two SLP intelligibility measures were evaluated, and the relationship between these measures was assessed. Finally, linear regression was used to evaluate the relationship between the naïve listeners' orthographic transcription scores and the two SLP intelligibility measures. The results indicated that the intrarater reliability for both SLP intelligibility measures was strong, and the interrater reliability between the SLP ratings was moderate to excellent. A moderate positive relationship between SLPs' VAS ratings and percent estimations was also observed. Finally, both SLPs' percent estimations and VAS ratings were predictive of naïve listeners' orthographic transcription scores, with SLPs' percent estimations being the strongest predictor. In conclusion, the average SLP percent estimations and VAS ratings are valid and reliable intelligibility measures. However, the validity and reliability of these measures vary between SLPs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.