Development and Validation of a Probe Word List to Assess Speech Motor Skills in Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The aim of the study was to develop and validate a probe word list and scoring system to assess speech motor skills in preschool and school-age children with motor speech disorders. Method This article describes the development of a probe word list and scoring system using a modified word complexity measure and principles based on the hierarchical development of speech motor control known as the Motor Speech Hierarchy (MSH). The probe word list development accounted for factors related to word (i.e., motoric) complexity, linguistic variables, and content familiarity. The probe word list and scoring system was administered to 48 preschool and school-age children with moderate-to-severe speech motor delay at clinical centers in Ontario, Canada, and then evaluated for reliability and validity. Results One-way analyses of variance revealed that the motor complexity of the probe words increased significantly for each MSH stage, while no significant differences in the linguistic complexity were found for neighborhood density, mean biphone frequency, or log word frequency. The probe word list and scoring system yielded high reliability on measures of internal consistency and intrarater reliability. Interrater reliability indicated moderate agreement across the MSH stages, with the exception of MSH Stage V, which yielded substantial agreement. The probe word list and scoring system demonstrated high content, construct (unidimensionality, convergent validity, and discriminant validity), and criterion-related (concurrent and predictive) validity. Conclusions The probe word list and scoring system described in the current study provide a standardized method that speech-language pathologists can use in the assessment of speech motor control. It can support clinicians in identifying speech motor difficulties in preschool and school-age children, set appropriate goals, and potentially measure changes in these goals across time and/or after intervention.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".