ArticleCoDAS2024
Evidence of validity and reliability of the Compressed Speech Test with Figures.
Article in CoDAS, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo seek evidence of validity and reliability for the Compressed Speech Test with Figures.
methodsThe study was subdivided into three stages: construct validation, criteria and reliability. All participants were aged between 6:00 and 8:11. For the construct, Compressed Speech with Figures and the gold standard Adapted Compressed Speech test were applied to children with typical phonological development. For criterion analysis, Compressed Speech with Figures was applied in two groups, with typical (G1) and atypical (G2) phonological development. Finally, the application protocols underwent analysis by two Speech Therapists, with experience in the area of Central Auditory Processing, seeking to obtain an inter-evaluator reliability analysis.
resultsThe correlation test indicated an almost perfect construct (correlation 0.843 for the right ear and 0.823 for the left ear). In the criterion analysis, it was noticed that both groups presented satisfactory results (G1 = 99.6 to 100%; G2 = 96 to 96.5%). The reliability analysis demonstrated that the protocol is easy to analyze, as both professionals presented unanimous responses.
conclusionIt was possible to obtain evidence of validity and reliability for the Compressed Speech with Figures instrument. The construct analysis showed that the instrument measures the same variable as the gold standard test, with an almost perfect correlation. In the criterion analysis, both groups presented similar performance, demonstrating that the instrument does not seem to differentiate populations with and without mild phonological disorder. The inter-evaluator reliability analysis demonstrated that the protocol is easy to analyze and score.
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.