ArticleAmerican journal of speech-language pathology2025
Automated Scoring of the Speech Intelligibility Test Using Autoscore.
Article in American journal of speech-language pathology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Paired-Comparison Versus Cross-Sectional Approaches for Assessing Longitudinal Speech Change in Parkinson's Disease Following Deep Brain Stimulation of the Subthalamic Nucleus.American journal of speech-language pathology · 2026Article
- Perceptual Outcome Measures for Supplementing Transcription Intelligibility in Speakers with Parkinson's Disease and Mild Dysarthria.Folia phoniatrica et logopaedica : official organ of the International Association of Logopedics and Phoniatrics (IALP) · 2026Article
- Exploring Methodological Decisions for Calculating the Minimally Detectable Change in Dysarthria: Reliability, Statistics, and Standard Error of Measurement.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2025Article
- Comparing manual and automated methods for calculating speaking rate in Parkinson's disease.JASA express letters · 2025Article
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
purposeThe purpose of the current study was to develop and test extensions to Autoscore, an automated approach for scoring listener transcriptions against target stimuli, for scoring the Speech Intelligibility Test (SIT), a widely used test for quantifying intelligibility in individuals with dysarthria.
methodThree main extensions to Autoscore were created including a compound rule, a contractions rule, and a numbers rule. We used two sets of previously collected listener SIT transcripts (
resultsAt both the individual sentence and speaker levels, Autoscore and the human scorer were nearly identical for both Data Set 1 (ICC = .9922 and ICC = .9767, respectively) and Data Set 2 (ICC = .9934 and ICC = .9946, respectively). Where disagreements between Autoscore and a human scorer occurred, the differences were often small (i.e., within 1 or 2 points). Across the two data sets ( DISCUSSION: Overall, SIT-extended Autoscore performed as well as human scorers and substantially improved scoring accuracy relative to the original version of Autoscore. Coupled with the substantial time and effort saving provided by Autoscore, its utility has been strengthened by the extensions developed and tested here.
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.