Department of Communicative Sciences and Disorders, University at Buffalo, NY.
Division of Speech Pathology, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2024 Oct 8;67(10):3673-3685. doi: 10.1044/2024_JSLHR-23-00785. Epub 2024 Sep 18.
Error related to incorrect use of rating scales is problematic in the assessment and treatment of dysarthria. The main purpose of this project was to determine scale fit for cardinal speech features of hypokinetic dysarthria. A secondary aim was to determine rater reliability for the two different scales explored.
Forty-three speakers with Parkinson's disease (PD) and 25 neurologically healthy control talkers were recorded reading sentences from the Speech Intelligibility Test. Twenty-two healthy female listeners used both an equal appearing interval (EAI) scale and a direct magnitude estimation (DME) scale to rate five perceptual speech features (i.e., overall speech severity, articulatory imprecision, reduced loudness, short rushes of speech, and monotony) from these recordings. Regression analyses were used to determine the linearity of the relationship between the means of the EAI and DME ratings. Inter- and intrarater reliability was calculated using intraclass correlation coefficients and Spearman's correlation coefficients, respectively, for both EAI and DME ratings.
There was a linear relationship between EAI and DME means for monotony, indicating it is a metathetic dimension. Curvilinear relationships were observed between the EAI and DME means for the other four features, indicating prothetic dimensions. Intra- and interrater reliability values were similar for EAI and DME ratings.
Overall, results of this work suggest that DME is the best fit for scaling several hypokinetic dysarthria features, and not the conventionally used EAI scale. Prothetic dimensions best scaled by DME include overall speech severity, articulatory imprecision, reduced loudness, and short rushes of speech. Monotony was the only feature found to be a metathetic dimension and would be best scaled using EAI or DME. Findings call for rethinking the widespread use of EAI scales for rating perceptual features as part of the assessment and treatment of motor speech disorders.
在构音障碍的评估和治疗中,与错误使用量表相关的错误是有问题的。本项目的主要目的是确定用于评估运动性构音障碍的关键语音特征的量表拟合度。次要目的是确定所探索的两种不同量表的评分者可靠性。
43 名帕金森病(PD)患者和 25 名神经健康对照组说话者被记录下来,朗读语音清晰度测试中的句子。22 名健康女性听众使用等响区间(EAI)量表和直接量级估计(DME)量表,对这些录音中的五个感知语音特征(即整体语音严重程度、发音不精确、响度降低、言语急促和单调)进行评分。回归分析用于确定 EAI 和 DME 评分均值之间的线性关系。分别使用组内相关系数和 Spearman 相关系数计算 EAI 和 DME 评分的组内和组间可靠性。
单调的 EAI 和 DME 均值之间存在线性关系,表明这是一个同位维度。其他四个特征的 EAI 和 DME 均值之间观察到曲线关系,表明这是一个位错维度。EAI 和 DME 评分的组内和组间可靠性值相似。
总体而言,这项工作的结果表明,DME 是对几种运动性构音障碍特征进行定标最合适的方法,而不是传统使用的 EAI 量表。DME 最佳定标位错维度包括整体语音严重程度、发音不精确、响度降低和言语急促。单调是唯一被发现为同位维度的特征,使用 EAI 或 DME 评分效果最佳。这些发现呼吁重新思考广泛使用 EAI 量表来评估感知特征,作为运动性言语障碍评估和治疗的一部分。