10 speech-language pathologists with extensive experience in judging speakers' intelligibility and 10 control subjects with no such previous experience provided written identification and magnitude-estimation scaling judgments of the intelligibility of nine audiotaped speech samples. Analysis indicated no significant main effect for experience on either the written identification or the magnitude-estimation scaling tasks. Implications for the continued use of magnitude-estimation scaling as a measure of speech intelligibility are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BeukelmanD. R.YorkstonK. M. (1980) The influence of passage familiarity on intelligibility estimates of dysarthric speakers. Journal of Communication Disorders, 13, 33–41.
2.
CullinanW. L.BrownC. S.BlalockP. D. (1986) Ratings of the intelligibility of esophageal speech. Journal of Communication Disorders, 19, 185–195.
3.
DoyleP.SwiftR.HaafR. (1989) Effects of listener sophistication on judgments of tracheoesophageal talker intelligibility. Journal of Communication Disorders, 22, 105–113.
4.
EllisL.FucciD. (1991) Magnitude-estimation scaling of intelligibility: The effects of listeners' experience and semantic-syntactic context. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 73, 295–305.
5.
FujimotoP.MadisonC.LarriganL. (1991) The effects of tracheostoma valve on the intelligibility of and quality of tracheoesophageal speech. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 34, 33–36.
6.
HellmanR.ZwislockiJ. (1963) Monaural loudness function at 1000 cps and interaural summation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 35, 856–865.
7.
KentR. (1988) Speech intelligibility. In YoderD. E.KentR. D. (Eds.), Decision making in speech-language pathology. Philadelphia, PA: Decker. Pp. 120–121.
8.
ManaganK. (1961) Speech improvement through articulation testing. American Annals of the Deaf, 106, 391–396.
9.
MarkidesA. (1983) The speech of hearing impaired children. Oxford, UK: Manchester Univer. Press.
10.
McCroskeyR. L.MulliganM. (1963) The relative intelligibility of esophageal speech and artificial larynx speech. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 28, 37–41.
11.
McGarrN. S. (1983) The intelligibility of deaf speech to experienced and inexperienced listeners. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 26, 451–458.
12.
MenckeE. O.OchsnerG. J.TestutE. W. (1983) Listener judges and the speech intelligibility of deaf children. Journal of Communication Disorders, 16, 176–180.
13.
MonsenR. B. (1978) Towards measuring how well hearing impaired children speak. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 21, 197–219.
14.
SamarV.MetzD. (1988) Criterion validity of speech intelligibility rating-scale procedures for the hearing impaired population. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 31, 307–316.
15.
SchiavettiN.MetzD. E.SitlerR. W. (1981) Construct validity of direct magnitude estimation and interval scaling of speech intelligibility: Evidence from a study of the hearing impaired. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 24, 441–445.
16.
StevensJ. (1986) Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
17.
ThomasW. (1963) Intelligibility of the speech of deaf children. Proceedings of the International Congress on Education of the Deaf, Document No. 106.
18.
WilliamsS. E.WatsonJ. B. (1985) Differences in speaking proficiencies in three laryngectomee groups. Archives of Otolaryngology, 111, 216–219.
