MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6996091013

Psycholinguistic speech processing assessment for adults: 
\nDevelopment and case series
\n

2017· dissertation· en· W6996091013 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueWhite Rose eTheses Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) · 2017
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicStuttering Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsycholinguisticsSpellingProfiling (computer programming)DyslexiaLiteracyReliability (semiconductor)Reading (process)Test (biology)Speech processing
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In educational institutions there are a significant number of young adults with speech, language and literacy problems. Nevertheless, due to a lack of assessment tools, difficulties are often not recognised which in turn limits access to possible supports. The specific objective of this study was to develop a comprehensive speech processing skills assessment battery for native English-speaking adults, taking psycholinguistics into account. The assessment tool consists of subtests that assess auditory discrimination of non-words and non-word repetition, reading and spelling of non-words, and spoonerisms with non- and real words. \nNormative data from 101 English-speaking adults (age 18-35 years) were collected and analysed in terms of general psychometric properties. Further in depth analyses look at the nature of mistakes and reaction time of participants. Moreover, a case series of participants who stammer (N=6) was conducted to test the speech processing assessment in regards to profiling existing speech difficulties and comparing these profiles to norm data. \nResults support the establishment of objectivity, validity and reliability of the assessment tool, but also highlight important factors which need to be investigated in more detail. Results concerning the case studies showed individual differences of performances compared to the norm data which can be explained by theoretical knowledge about stammering. \nOutcomes encourage the usage of the assessment tool for research (e.g. comparison of speech processing profiles in adults with speech disorders) as well as the possibility of further development for clinical and educational settings (e.g. the development of specific disability support). A next step of this programme of work could be to modify the assessment tool based on analysed outcomes. Moreover, deeper investigation of people experiencing speech difficulties could follow to support the profiling of adults with persistent developmental speech difficulties in, for example, higher education. \n

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.277 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWhite Rose eTheses Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York)Same topicStuttering Research and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207