A Pilot Study: Normative Data on the Intelligibility of 3 1/2 Year Old Children
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Most of the previous published research involving intelligibility has focused on persons with various disabilities or delays. Minimal research has been conducted on intelligibility in young children with no diagnosed speech and/ or language disorders. The result is a gap in normative data by which to set a standard to judge speech as being at an acceptable level of intelligibility for a particular age group. The focus of this pilot study was to collect normative data on the intelligibility of young children, ages 3:6 ±2 months, with no diagnosed speech and/or language disorder. ~ Thirteen subjects, ages 3:6 ±2 months, were recruited from the greater Portland/Vancouver area. These subjects were screened for normal development in speech sound production, expressive/receptive language, and hearing. It was also established that English was the primary language spoken in the home. Resonance, voice quality, and fluency were informally assessed by the researcher during the course of the session and found to be normal. The 100-word speech samples were collected by the researcher on audiotape and later played back to two listeners, who were familiar with the topic but unfamiliar with the speaker. The listeners orthographically transcribed the samples and a comparison was made by the researcher between the two sets of written transcriptions. This comparison provided the percentage of intelligible words, out of a possible 100, which were understood by both listeners. The results showed the mean intelligibility percentage for 31/2-year-old children with no diagnosed speech and/or language disorders to be 88% (SD = 5.7%) with a range of intelligibility from 76% to 96 % . Both the mode and the median for this sample were 90 % . Several other variables were addressed as points of interest but the comparisons were not investigated in depth. The focus of this study was to collect, in a methodically documented manner, normative data on intelligibility in 3 1/2-year-olds. When the results from this study are compared to the only other available data (Weiss, 1982), they were found to fall within 1 SD of each other (SD = 5.7%), indicating that there are no measurable differences between the findings.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».