BACKGROUND: We have previously demonstrated that when speech generating devices (SGD) are used as assistive technologies, they are preferred over the users’ natural voices.
OBJECTIVE: We sought to examine whether using SGDs would affect listener’s perceptions of hirability of people with complex communication needs.
METHODS: In a series of three experiments, participants rated videotaped actors, one using SGD and the other using their natural, mildly dysarthric voice, on (a) a measurement of perceptions of speaker credibility, strength, and informedness and (b) measurements of hirability for jobs coded in terms of skill, verbal ability, and interactivity. Experiment 1 examined hirability for jobs varying in terms of skill and verbal ability. Experiment 2 was a replication that examined hirability for jobs varying in terms of interactivity. Experiment 3 examined jobs in terms of skill and specific mode of interaction (face-to-face, telephone, computer-mediated).
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Actors were rated more favorably when using SGD than their own voices. Actors using SGD were also rated more favorably for highly skilled and highly verbal jobs. This preference for SGDs over mildly dysarthric voice was also found for jobs entailing computer-mediated-communication, particularly skillful jobs.
Bureau U. Census.gov [Internet]. Census.gov. 2015 [cited 3 December 2015]. http://www.census.gov.
2.
NelsonDE. Job-related social networks and communication technology. Augment Altern Commun2006;22(1):1–9.
3.
BruyèreSM, EricksonWA, VanLooyS. Comparative study of workplace policy and practices contributing to disability nondiscrimination. Rehabil Psychol2004;49(1):28–38.
4.
CorriganP. The stigma of disease and disability. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2014.
5.
GouvierWD, Sytsma-JordanS, MayvilleS. Patterns of discrimination in hiring job applicants with disabilities: The role of disability type, job complexity, and public contact. Rehabil Psychol2003;48(3):175–81.
6.
McLaughlinME, BellMP, StringerDY. Stigma and acceptance of persons with disabilities: Understudied aspects of workforce diversity. Group Organ Manage2004;29(3):302–33.
7.
NeufeldtAH, MathiesonR. Empirical dimensions of discrimination against disabled people. Health Hum Rights1995;1(2):174.
8.
RenLR, PaetzoldRL, ColellaA. A meta-analysis of experimental studies on the effects of disability on human resource judgments. Hum Resour Manage R2008;18(3):191–203.
9.
ColellaA, DeNisiAS, VarmaA. The impact of ratee’s disability on performance judgments and choice as partner: The role of disability-job fit stereotypes and interdependence of rewards. J Appl Psychol1998;83(1):102–11.
10.
ColellaA, VarmaA. Disability-job fit stereotypes and the evaluation of persons with disabilities at work. J Occup Rehabil1999;9(2):79–95.
11.
LouvetE. Social judgment toward job applicants with disabilities: Perception of personal qualities and competences. Rehabil Psychol2007;52(3):297–303.
12.
JuS, RobertsE, ZhangD. Employer attitudes towad workers with disabilities:A review of research in the past decade. J Vocat Rehabil2013;38:113–23.
13.
BradyMC, ClarkAM, DicksonS, PatonG, BarbourRS. The impact of stroke-related dysarthria on social participation and implications for rehabilitation. Disabil Rehabil2011;33(3):178–86.
14.
CruiceM, WorrallL, HicksonL. Quantifying aphasic people’s social lives in the context of non-aphasic peers. Aphasiology2006;20(12):1210–25.
15.
HilariKI, NorthcottS. Social support in people with chronic aphasia. Aphasiology2006;20(1):17–36.
16.
WeitzelA. Overcoming loss of voice. In: BraithwaiteD, ThompsonT, ed. by. Handbook of communication and people with disabilities: Research and application1st ed. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; 2000. pp. 451–66.
17.
HarteliusL, ElmbergM, HolmR, LövbergA-S, NikolaidisS. Living with dysarthria: Evaluation of a self-report questionnaire. Folia Phoniatr Logop2008;60(1):11–19.
18.
StancliffeRJ, LarsonS, AuerbachK, EnglerJ, TaubS, LakinKC. Individuals with intellectual disabilities and augmentative and alternative communication: Analysis of survey data on uptake of aided AAC, and loneliness experiences. Augment Altern Commun2010;26(2):87–96.
19.
IsettiD, EadieT. The Americans With Disabilities Act and voice disorders: Practical guidelines for voice clinicians. J Voice2015.
20.
FriginalE, PearsonP, DiFerrante L, PickeringL, BruceC. Linguistic characteristics of AAC discourse in the workplace. Discourse Stud2013;15(3):279–98.
21.
McNaughtonD, BryenDN. AAC technologies to enhance participation and access to meaningful societal roles for adolescents and adults with developmental disabilities who require AAC. Augment Altern Commun2007;23(3):217–29.
22.
McNaughtonD, ChappleD. AAC and Communication in the Workplace. Perspect Augment Altern Commun2013;22(1):30.
23.
BryenDN, PottsBB, CareyAC. So you want to work? What employers say about job skills, recruitment and hiring employees who rely on AAC. Augment Altern Commun2007;23(2):126–39.
24.
McNaughtonD, LightJ, GroszykL. “Don’t give up”: Employment experiences of individuals with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis who use augmentative and alternative communication. Augment Altern Commun2001;17(3):179–95.
25.
McNaughtonD, SymonsG, LightJ, ParsonsA. “My dream was to pay taxes”: The self-employment experiences of individuals who use augmentative and alternative communication. J Vocat Rehabil2006;25:181–96.
26.
DeRuyterF, McNaughtonD, CavesK, BryenDN, WilliamsMB. Enhancing AAC connections with the world. Augment Altern Commun2007;23(3):258–70.
27.
HigginbothamDJ, ShaneH, RussellS, CavesK. Access to AAC: Present, past, and future. Augment Altern Commun2007;23(3):243–57.
28.
McNaughtonD, LightJ, GullaS. Opening up a’ whole new world’: Employer and co-worker perspectives on working with individuals who use augmentative and alternative communication. Augment Altern Commun2003;19(4):235–53.
29.
WilliamsM, KrezmanC, McNaughtonD. “Reach for the stars”: Five principles for the next 25 years of AAC. Augment Altern Commun2008;24(3):194–206.
30.
SternSE, MullennixJW, WilsonSJ. Effects of perceived disability on persuasiveness of computer-synthesized speech. J Appl Psychol2002;87(2):411–7.
31.
MayoC, ClarkRA, KingS. Listeners’ weighting of acoustic cues to synthetic speech naturalness: A multidimensional scaling analysis. Speech Commun2011;53(3):311–26.
32.
SternSE, DumontM, MullennixJW, WintersML. Positive prejudice toward disabled persons using synthesized speech: Does the effect persist across contexts?J Lang Soc Psychol2007;26(4):363–80.
33.
DragerKDR, HustadKC, GableKL. Telephone communication: Synthetic and dysarthric speech intelligibility and listener preferences. Augment Altern Commun2004;20(2):103–12.
34.
SternSE, ChobanyCM, PatelDV, TresslerJJ. Listeners’ preference for computer-synthesized speech over natural speech of people with disabilities. Rehabil Psychol2014;59(3):289–97.
35.
McCarthyJ, LightJ. Attitudes toward individuals who use augmentative and alternative communication: Research review. Augment Altern Commun2005;21(1):41–55.
36.
McNaughtonD, RichardsonL. Supporting positive employment outcomes for individuals with autism who use AAC. Perspect Augment Altern Commun2013;22(3):164.
37.
PatersonH, CarpenterC. Using different methods to communicate: How adults with severe acquired communication difficulties make decisions about the communication methods they use and how they experience them. Disabil Rehabil2015;37(17):1522–30.
38.
SchlosserRW. The efficacy of augmentative and alternative communication. Amsterdam: Academic Press; 2003.
39.
HammenVL, YorkstonKM, MinifeFD. Effects of temporal alterations on speech intelligibility in parkinsonian dysarthria. J Speech Hear Res1994;37:244–53.
40.
YorkstonKM, StrandEA, KennedyMRT. Comprehensibility of dysarthric speech: Implications for assessment and treatment planning. Am J Speech Lang Pathol1996;5:55–66.
41.
PettyRE, CacioppoJT. Communication and persuasion. New York: Springer Verlag; 1986.
42.
SternSE. Computer-synthesized speech and perceptions of the social influence of disabled users. J Lang Soc Psychol2008;27(3):254–65.
43.
LuciaV. The effects of speech rate and speaker-listener congruence on persuasion [Masters]. Wayne State University; 1998.
44.
LeathersD. Successful nonverbal communication. Boston: Allyn and Bacon; 1997.
45.
RosenthalR, RosnowRL. Essentials of behavioral research3rd Ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2008.
46.
CarpenterNC, PaetzoldRL. An examination of factors influencing responses to requests for disability accommodations. Rehabil Psychol2013;58(1):18–27.
47.
ChismM, SatcherJ. Human resource management students’ perceptions of employment and individuals with disabilities. J Appl Rehabil Couns1997;28:38–42.
48.
McCarthyJW, Donofrio-HorwitzLM, SmuckerLM. The effects of reading personal narratives written by an individual who uses AAC on the attitudes of pre-professionals in business. Augment Altern Commun2010;26(2):61–74.
