ArticleAmerican journal of speech-language pathology2025
Can We Trust Our Ears? How Accurate and Reliable Are Speech-Language Pathologists' Estimates of Children's Speech Intelligibility?
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Examining Factors That Impact Speech Acceptability and Intelligibility in 4- to 7-Year-Old Children With Cleft Palate.The Cleft palate-craniofacial journal : official publication of the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association · 2026Article
- Automated Assessment of Word- and Sentence-Level Speech Intelligibility in Developmental Motor Speech Disorders: A Cross-Linguistic Investigation.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Reevaluating the classification of pediatric speech sound disorders: a ground truthing perspective.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to investigate the accuracy and reliability of subjective intelligibility estimates of young children's speech made by speech-language pathologists (SLPs) compared to naive listeners, and to examine how the severity of the child's speech impairment influences SLPs' intelligibility estimates.
methodEighteen certified SLPs and 18 naive listeners provided intelligibility ratings of single-word speech samples produced by six preschoolers with speech disorders. All listeners rated intelligibility using two different methods: orthographic transcription and subjective estimation of the percentage of words understood. Absolute differences between estimated and transcription intelligibility scores were used to examine accuracy of intelligibility estimates in both listener groups, and intraclass correlations were used to evaluate interrater reliability.
resultsSubjective intelligibility estimates differed from orthographic transcription-based intelligibility scores by 12.4% in the SLP listener group and 18.9% in the naive listener group. Interrater reliability of estimated intelligibility was substantially lower than transcription intelligibility in both listener groups.
conclusionResults of this preliminary study suggest that subjective intelligibility estimates by SLPs are not adequately accurate or reliable for measurement of children's speech intelligibility.
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.