Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research Vol.55 S1502-S1517 October 2012. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2012/11-0318)
© American Speech-Language-Hearing Association
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrowCustom Print
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 Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Haley, K. L.
Right arrow Articles by Roth, H. L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Haley, K. L.
Right arrow Articles by Roth, H. L.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Delicious   Add to Digg   Add to Facebook   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Supplement: Apraxia of Speech: Concepts and Controversies

Toward a Quantitative Basis for Assessment and Diagnosis of Apraxia of Speech

Katarina L. Haleya
Adam Jacksa
Michael de Riesthalb
Rima Abou-Khalilb
Heidi L. Rotha
a The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
b Vanderbilt Bill Wilkerson Center for Otolaryngology and Communication Sciences, Nashville, Tennessee

Correspondence to Katarina L. Haley: Katarina_Haley{at}med.unc.edu

Purpose: We explored the reliability and validity of 2 quantitative approaches to document presence and severity of speech properties associated with apraxia of speech (AOS).

Method: A motor speech evaluation was administered to 39 individuals with aphasia. Audio-recordings of the evaluation were presented to 3 experienced clinicians to determine AOS diagnosis and to rate severity of 11 speech dimensions. Additionally, research assistants coded 11 operationalized metrics of articulation, fluency, and prosody in the same speech samples and in recordings from 20 neurologically healthy participants.

Results: Agreement among the 3 clinicians was limited for both AOS diagnosis and perceptual scaling, but inter-observer reliability for the operationalized metrics was strong. The relationships between most operationalized metrics and mean severity ratings for corresponding perceptual dimensions were moderately strong and statistically significant. Both perceptual scaling and operationalized quantification approaches were sensitive to the presence or absence of AOS.

Conclusions: Perceptual scaling and operationalized metrics are promising quantification techniques that can help establish diagnostic transparency for AOS. However, because satisfactory reliability cannot be assumed for scaling techniques, effective training and calibration procedures should be implemented. Operationalized metrics show strong potential for enhancing diagnostic objectivity and sensitivity.

KEY WORDS: perceptual evaluation, acoustic analysis, differential diagnosis, motor speech disorders, aphasia


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Delicious Delicious   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Facebook Facebook   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?