Assessing speech intelligibility of pathological speech: test types, ratings and transcription measures.

ABSTRACT

Speech intelligibility is an essential though complex construct in speech pathology. In this paper, we investigated the interrater reliability and validity of two types of intelligibility measures: a rating-based measure, through Visual Analogue Scales (VAS), and a transcription-based measure called Accuracy of Words (AcW), through two forms of orthographic transcriptions, one containing only existing words (EWTrans) and one allowing all sorts of words, including both existing words and pseudowords (AWTrans). Both VAS and AcW scores were collected from five expert raters. We selected speakers with various severity levels of dysarthria (SevL) and employed two types of speech materials, i.e. meaningful sentences and word lists. To measure reliability, we applied Generalizability Theory, which is relatively unknown in the field of pathological speech and language research but enables more comprehensive analyses than traditional methods, e.g., the intraclass correlation coefficient. The results convincingly indicate that five expert raters were sufficient to provide reliable rating-based (VAS) and transcription-based (AcW) measures, and that reliability increased as the number of raters or utterances increased. Generalizability Theory has proved effective in systematically dealing with reliability issues in our experimental design. We also investigated construct and concurrent validity. Construct validity was addressed by exploring the correlations between VAS and AcW within and across speech materials. Concurrent validity was addressed by exploring the correlations between our measures, i.e. VAS and AcW, and two external measures, i.e. phoneme intelligibility and SevL. The correlations corroborate the validity of VAS and AcW to assess speech intelligibility, both in sentences and word lists.