American journal of speech-language pathology · 2017
Speech-Language Pathologists' Use of Intelligibility Measures in Adults With Dysarthria.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Gurevich Naomi, Scamihorn Sydney L
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Speech-language pathologists (SLPs) who work with adults with dysarthria were surveyed to investigate trends of clinical practice for assessing speech intelligibility.
METHOD: Two hundred ninety-six SLPs responded to an online survey October 22-November 30, 2015.
RESULTS: Findings showed that 35% of SLPs lacked access to any standardized assessments of intelligibility, with 66% of these implicating cost as the main reason. Work settings played a role, as all SLPs working in Veterans Affairs hospitals and 97% of SLPs working in university or research clinics reported access to at least one formal assessment. Even with access to formal tools to measure intelligibility, most SLPs preferred less formal measures. It is surprising to note that many SLPs reported using physical examinations (e.g., of cranial nerves and oral mechanisms) to measure speech intelligibility.
CONCLUSIONS: Results indicate the need to increase SLP familiarity with, and access to, currently available standardized assessments, as well as to improve education regarding the fundamental need to rate speech to assess intelligibility. Clinicians may also benefit from new standardized methods to objectively assess intelligibility that are accessible, practical, and efficient.
METHOD: Two hundred ninety-six SLPs responded to an online survey October 22-November 30, 2015.
RESULTS: Findings showed that 35% of SLPs lacked access to any standardized assessments of intelligibility, with 66% of these implicating cost as the main reason. Work settings played a role, as all SLPs working in Veterans Affairs hospitals and 97% of SLPs working in university or research clinics reported access to at least one formal assessment. Even with access to formal tools to measure intelligibility, most SLPs preferred less formal measures. It is surprising to note that many SLPs reported using physical examinations (e.g., of cranial nerves and oral mechanisms) to measure speech intelligibility.
CONCLUSIONS: Results indicate the need to increase SLP familiarity with, and access to, currently available standardized assessments, as well as to improve education regarding the fundamental need to rate speech to assess intelligibility. Clinicians may also benefit from new standardized methods to objectively assess intelligibility that are accessible, practical, and efficient.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
Attitude of Health PersonnelDysarthriaHealth Care SurveysHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansInternetJudgmentObserver VariationPhonationPredictive Value of TestsReproducibility of ResultsRespirationSeverity of Illness IndexSpeech AcousticsSpeech IntelligibilitySpeech PerceptionSpeech Production MeasurementSpeech-Language PathologyVoice Quality