Quality of Mobile Phone and Tablet Mobile Apps for Speech Sound Disorders: Protocol for an Evidence-Based Appraisal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although mobile apps are readily available for speech sound disorders (SSD), their validity has not been systematically evaluated. This evidence-based appraisal will critically review and synthesize current evidence on available therapy apps for use by children with SSD. OBJECTIVE: The main aims are to (1) identify the types of apps currently available for Android and iOS mobile phones and tablets, and (2) to critique their design features and content using a structured quality appraisal tool. METHODS: This protocol paper presents and justifies the methods used for a systematic review of mobile apps that provide intervention for use by children with SSD. The primary outcomes of interest are (1) engagement, (2) functionality, (3) aesthetics, (4) information quality, (5) subjective quality, and (6) perceived impact. Quality will be assessed by 2 certified practicing speech-language pathologists using a structured quality appraisal tool. Two app stores will be searched from the 2 largest operating platforms, Android and iOS. Systematic methods of knowledge synthesis shall include searching the app stores using a defined procedure, data extraction, and quality analysis. RESULTS: This search strategy shall enable us to determine how many SSD apps are available for Android and for iOS compatible mobile phones and tablets. It shall also identify the regions of the world responsible for the apps' development, the content and the quality of offerings. Recommendations will be made for speech-language pathologists seeking to use mobile apps in their clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS: This protocol provides a structured process for locating apps and appraising the quality, as the basis for evaluating their use in speech pathology for children in English-speaking nations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.162 | 0.211 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.018 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.051 | 0.010 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".