A Pilot Study: Normative Data on the Intelligibility of 3 1/2 Year Old Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".