Effect of Oral Placement and Expressive Therapies on Speech Intelligibility of Adolescents with Articulation Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intelligible speech is vital to every adolescent's life, but this skill can be confounded with the presence of articulation disorder. Meanwhile, studies have been conducted using different therapies to improve speech intelligibility. This study investigated the effect of oral placement and expressive therapies on speech intelligibility among adolescents with articulation disorders. The study adopted a pretest-posttest, control group, quasi-experimental research design with a 3x2x2 factorial matrix. Three special centers were randomly selected, and purposive sampling was used in selecting 60 adolescents having articulation disorders comprising 34 males and 26 females. These adolescents were randomly assigned to Experimental Group 1 (n= 22), Experimental Group 2 (n= 21), and Control (n= 17). Speech Intelligibility Assessment Scale (r=0.92) was the instrument used for the study. Participants in the experimental groups were exposed to the oral placement and expressive therapeutic treatments, while those in the control groups were sensitized to a placebo. Three hypotheses were tested at a 0.05 level of significance, while data were analyzed using Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA), mean scores, and Bonferroni Post Hoc Test. Findings revealed that there was a significant main effect of treatments F(2,56) = 112.52; p <0.05 (oral placement therapy, expressive therapy, and control group with placebo), and also a significant interaction effect of treatments, gender, and age F(2, 47) = 7.37; p <0.05 on speech intelligibility of adolescents with articulation disorders despite the presence of placebo. Oral placement and expressive therapies were effective in managing the speech intelligibility of adolescents with articulation disorders. Therefore, speech therapists should adopt these therapeutic interventions in rehabilitating adolescents with articulation disorders.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".