JSLHR
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Journal of Speech and Hearing Research Vol.35 876-891 August 1992.
© American Speech-Language-Hearing Association
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow My Folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Demorest, M. E.
Right arrow Articles by Bernstein, L. E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Demorest, M. E.
Right arrow Articles by Bernstein, L. E.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Facebook   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Sources of Variability in Speechreading Sentences

A Generalizability Analysis

Marilyn E. Demorest 1
Lynne E. Bernstein 2
1 University of Maryland, Baltimore County
2 Gallaudet University Washington, DC

Generalizability theory (Cronbach, Gleser, Nanda, & Rajaratnam, 1972) was used to estimate the percentage of variance explained by three sources of variability in speechreading sentences: the subject, the talker, and the sentence materials. Videodisc recordings of the 100 CID Everyday Sentences (Davis & Silverman, 1970), spoken by a male and a female talker, were presented to 104 subjects with normal hearing. For performance on individual sentences (total number of words correct), the most important systematic sources of variability were the sentence (26.3%), the speechreader (10.5%), the talker (4.9%), and the interaction of talker and sentence (5.1%). Residual error accounted for 51.2% of the variance. Generalizability functions are presented, as a function of test length, for five models of test administration and interpretation. For 10-, 50-, and 100-item lists, generalizability is predicted to be .70, .92, and .96, respectively, for a single talker. Psychometric characteristics of these recordings of the CID sentences are also presented.

KEY WORDS: speechreading (lipreading), individual differences, assessment, visual speech perception, generalizabllty analysis

Submitted on May 16, 1991
Accepted on October 14, 1991


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Facebook Facebook   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 JSLHRHome page
E. T. Auer, Jr. and L. E. Bernstein
Estimating When and How Words Are Acquired: A Natural Experiment on the Development of the Mental Lexicon
J Speech Lang Hear Res, June 1, 2008; 51(3): 750 - 758.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
All ASHA Journals AJA AJSLP JSLHR LSHSS
Copyright © 1992 by the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association.