Intelligibility and comprehensibility: A Delphi consensus study.
Delphi
assessment
comprehensibility
intelligibility
speech
terminology
Journal
International journal of language & communication disorders
ISSN: 1460-6984
Titre abrégé: Int J Lang Commun Disord
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9803709
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 2022
01 2022
Historique:
revised:
12
07
2021
received:
23
03
2021
accepted:
30
08
2021
pubmed:
25
9
2021
medline:
3
5
2022
entrez:
24
9
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Intelligibility and comprehensibility in speech disorders can be assessed both perceptually and instrumentally, but a lack of consensus exists regarding the terminology and related speech measures in both the clinical and scientific fields. To draw up a more consensual definition of intelligibility and comprehensibility and to define which assessment methods relate to both concepts, as part of their definition. A three-round modified Delphi consensus study was carried out among clinicians, researchers and lecturers engaged in activities in speech disorders. Forty international experts from different fields (mainly clinicians, linguists and computer scientists) participated in the elaboration of a comprehensive definition of intelligibility and comprehensibility and their assessment. While both concepts are linked and contribute to functional human communication, they relate to two different reconstruction levels of the transmitted speech material. Intelligibility refers to the acoustic-phonetic decoding of the utterance, while comprehensibility relates to the reconstruction of the meaning of the message. Consequently, the perceptual assessment of intelligibility requires the use of unpredictable speech material (pseudo-words, minimal word pairs, unpredictable sentences), whereas comprehensibility assessment is meaning and context related and entails more functional speech stimuli and tasks. This consensus study provides the scientific and clinical communities with a better understanding of intelligibility and comprehensibility. A comprehensive definition was drafted, including specifications regarding the tasks that best fit their assessment. The outcome has implications for both clinical practice and scientific research, as the disambiguation improves communication between professionals and thereby increases the efficiency of patient assessment and care and benefits the progress of research as well as research translation. What is already known on the subject Intelligibility and comprehensibility in speech disorders can be assessed both perceptually and instrumentally, but a lack of consensus exists regarding the terminology and related speech measures in both the clinical and scientific fields. What this paper adds to existing knowledge This consensus study allowed for a more consensual and comprehensive definition of intelligibility and comprehensibility and their assessment, for clinicians and researchers. The terminological disambiguation helps to improve communication between experts in the field of speech disorders and thereby benefits the progress of research as well as research translation. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work? Unambiguous communication between professionals, for example, in a multidisciplinary team, allows for the improvement in the efficiency of patient care. Furthermore, this study allowed the assessment tasks that best fit the definition of both intelligibility and comprehensibility to be specified, thereby providing valuable information to improve speech disorder assessment and its standardization.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Intelligibility and comprehensibility in speech disorders can be assessed both perceptually and instrumentally, but a lack of consensus exists regarding the terminology and related speech measures in both the clinical and scientific fields.
AIMS
To draw up a more consensual definition of intelligibility and comprehensibility and to define which assessment methods relate to both concepts, as part of their definition.
METHODS & PROCEDURES
A three-round modified Delphi consensus study was carried out among clinicians, researchers and lecturers engaged in activities in speech disorders.
OUTCOMES & RESULTS
Forty international experts from different fields (mainly clinicians, linguists and computer scientists) participated in the elaboration of a comprehensive definition of intelligibility and comprehensibility and their assessment. While both concepts are linked and contribute to functional human communication, they relate to two different reconstruction levels of the transmitted speech material. Intelligibility refers to the acoustic-phonetic decoding of the utterance, while comprehensibility relates to the reconstruction of the meaning of the message. Consequently, the perceptual assessment of intelligibility requires the use of unpredictable speech material (pseudo-words, minimal word pairs, unpredictable sentences), whereas comprehensibility assessment is meaning and context related and entails more functional speech stimuli and tasks.
CONCLUSION & IMPLICATIONS
This consensus study provides the scientific and clinical communities with a better understanding of intelligibility and comprehensibility. A comprehensive definition was drafted, including specifications regarding the tasks that best fit their assessment. The outcome has implications for both clinical practice and scientific research, as the disambiguation improves communication between professionals and thereby increases the efficiency of patient assessment and care and benefits the progress of research as well as research translation.
WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS
What is already known on the subject Intelligibility and comprehensibility in speech disorders can be assessed both perceptually and instrumentally, but a lack of consensus exists regarding the terminology and related speech measures in both the clinical and scientific fields. What this paper adds to existing knowledge This consensus study allowed for a more consensual and comprehensive definition of intelligibility and comprehensibility and their assessment, for clinicians and researchers. The terminological disambiguation helps to improve communication between experts in the field of speech disorders and thereby benefits the progress of research as well as research translation. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work? Unambiguous communication between professionals, for example, in a multidisciplinary team, allows for the improvement in the efficiency of patient care. Furthermore, this study allowed the assessment tasks that best fit the definition of both intelligibility and comprehensibility to be specified, thereby providing valuable information to improve speech disorder assessment and its standardization.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34558145
doi: 10.1111/1460-6984.12672
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
21-41Informations de copyright
© 2021 Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists.
Références
Altaher, A.M., Chu, S.Y., Kam, R., binti, M. & Razak, R.A. (2019) A report of assessment tools for individuals with dysarthria. The Open Public Health Journal, 12, 384-386. Available from: https://doi.org/10.2174/1874944501912010384.
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2003) Disability prevalence and trends. Disability Series. AIHW Cat. No. DIS 34. Canberra: AIHW. Available from: https://www.aihw.gov.au/getmedia/08fa900b-559a-4af9-9466-b3c200e99bd5/dpt.pdf.aspx?inline=true.
Auzou, P. & Rolland-Monnoury, V. (2006) BECD 2006-Batterie d’Évaluation Clinique de la Dysarthrie. Isbergues: Orthoédition.
Barefoot, S.M., Bochner, J.H., Johnson, B.A. & vom Eigen, B.A. (1993) Rating deaf speakers’ comprehensibility: an exploratory investigation. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 2, 31-35. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1044/1058-0360.0203.31.
Beers, M.H., Ouslander, J.G., Rollingher, I., Reuben, D.B., Brooks, J. & Beck, J.C. (1991) Explicit criteria for determining inappropriate medication use in nursing home residents. Archives of Internal Medicine, 151, 1825-1832. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.1991.00400090107019.
Berns, M. (2008) World Englishes, English as a lingua franca, and intelligibility. World Englishes, 27, 327-334. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-971X.2008.00571.x.
Birko, S., Dove, E.S., Özdemir, V. & Dalal, K. (2015) Evaluation of nine consensus indices in Delphi foresight research and their dependency on Delphi survey characteristics: a simulation study and debate on Delphi design and interpretation. PLoS One, 10, 1-14. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0135162.
Chalmers, J. & Armour, M. (2019) The Delphi technique. In: Liamputtong, P. (Ed.) Handbook of research methods in health social sciences. Singapore: Springer, pp. 715-735. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5251-4_99.
Chin, J., Sato, P.A. & Mann, J.M. (1990) Projections of HIV infections and AIDS cases to the year 2000. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 68, 1-11.
Cunningham, B.J., Kwok, E., Turkstra, L. & Oram Cardy, J. (2019) Establishing consensus among community clinicians on how to categorize and define preschoolers’ speech and language impairments at assessment. Journal of Communication Disorders, 82, 105925. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcomdis.2019.105925.
Denman, D., Kim, J.H., Munro, N., Speyer, R. & Cordier, R. (2019) Describing language assessments for school-aged children: a Delphi study. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 21, 602-612. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/17549507.2018.1552716.
Diamond, I.R., Grant, R.C., Feldman, B.M., Pencharz, P.B., Ling, S.C., Moore, A.M. & Wales, P.W. (2014) Defining consensus: a systematic review recommends methodologic criteria for reporting of Delphi studies. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 67, 401-409. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.12.002.
Dykstra, A.D., Hakel, M.E. & Adams, S.G. (2007) Application of the ICF in reduced speech intelligibility in dysarthria. Seminars in Speech and Language, 28, 301-311. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2007-986527.
Fasser, C.E., Smith, Q.W. & Luchi, R.J. (1992) Geriatrics fellowsʼ perceptions of the quality of their research training. Academic Medicine, 67, 696-8. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-199210000-00017.
Field, J. (2005) Intelligibility and the listener. The role of lexical stress. TESOL Quarterly, 39, 399-423.
Fredouille, C., Ghio, A., Laaridh, I., Lalain, M. & Woisard, V. (2019) Acoustic-phonetic decoding for speech intelligibility evaluation in the context of Head and Neck Cancers. In International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (Melbourne), pp. 3051-3055.
Ghio, A., Lalain, M., Giusti, L., Pouchoulin, G., Robert, D., Rebourg, M., Fredouille, C., Laaridh, I. & Woisard, V. (2018) Une mesure d'intelligibilité par décodage acoustico-phonétique de pseudo-mots dans le cas de parole atypique. In XXXIIe Journées d’Études sur la Parole (Aix-en-Provence), pp. 285-293. Available from: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01770161v2/document.
von der Gracht, H.A. (2012) Consensus measurement in Delphi studies. Review and implications for future quality assurance. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 79, 1525-1536. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2012.04.013.
Hodge, M. & Whitehill, T. (2010) Intelligibility impairments. In: Damico, J.S., Müller, N. & Ball, M.J. (Eds.) The handbook of language and speech disorders. Chichester: Blackwell Publishing, pp. 99-114. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444318975.ch4.
Hsieh, H.-F. & Shannon, S.E. (2005) Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15, 1277-1288. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687.
Hsu, C.-C. & Sandford, B.A. (2007) The Delphi technique: making sense of consensus. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 12, 1-8. Available from: https://doi.org/10.7275/pdz9-th90.
Hustad, K.C. (2008) The relationship between listener comprehension and intelligibility scores for speakers with dysarthria. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 51, 562-573. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2008/040).
Jones, J. & Hunter, D. (1995) Qualitative research: consensus methods for medical and health services research. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.), 311, 376. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.311.7001.376.
Kennington, C., Iida, R., Tokunaga, T. & Schlangen, D. (2015) Incrementally tracking reference in human/human dialogue using linguistic and extra-linguistic information. In Proceedings of the 2015 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (Denver), pp. 272-282. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3115/v1/n15-1031.
Letrilliart, L. & Vanmeerbeek, M. (2011) À la recherche du consensus : quelle méthode utiliser ? Exercer, 99, 170-177.
Linstone, H.A. & Turoff, M. (2002) The Delphi method: techniques and applications. Newark, NJ: New Jersey Institute of Technology.
McMillan, S.S., Kelly, F., Sav, A., Kendall, E., King, M.A., Whitty, J.A. & Wheeler, A.J. (2014) Using the nominal group technique: how to analyse across multiple groups. Health Services and Outcomes Research Methodology, 14, 92-108. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10742-014-0121-1.
McMillan, S.S., King, M. & Tully, M.P. (2016) How to use the nominal group and Delphi techniques. International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy, 38, 655-662. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-016-0257-x.
McPherson, S., Reese, C. & Wendler, M.C. (2018) Methodology update: Delphi studies. Nursing Research, 67, 404-410. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1097/NNR.0000000000000297.
Munro, M.J. & Derwing, T.M. (1995) Foreign accent, comprehensibility, and intelligibility in the speech of second language learners. Language Learning, 45, 73-97. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1995.tb00963.x.
Nelson, C.L. (2008) Intelligibility since 1969. World Englishes, 27, 297-308.
Perry, S. & Kalberer, J.T. (1980) The NIH Consensus-development program and the assessment of health-care technologies. New England Journal of Medicine, 303, 169-172. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM198007173030334.
Pommée, T., Balaguer, M., Mauclair, J., Pinquier, J. & Woisard, V. (2021) Assessment of adult speech disorders: current situation and needs in French-speaking clinical practice. Logopedics Phoniatrics Vocology, 1-15. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/14015439.2020.1870245.
Pommée, T., Balaguer, M., Pinquier, J., Mauclair, J., Woisard, V. & Speyer, R. (2021) Relationship between phoneme-level spectral acoustics and speech intelligibility in healthy speech: a systematic review. Speech, Language and Hearing, 24(2), 105-132. https://doi.org/10.1080/2050571x.2021.1913300.
Porzel, R. (2011) Contextual computing. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
Powell, C. (2003) The Delphi technique: myths and realities. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 41, 376-382. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.2003.02537.x.
Roulstone, S. (2015) Exploring the relationship between client perspectives, clinical expertise and research evidence. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 17, 211-221. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3109/17549507.2015.1016112.
Rumbach, A.F., Finch, E. & Stevenson, G. (2019) What are the usual assessment practices in adult non-progressive dysarthria rehabilitation? A survey of Australian dysarthria practice patterns. Journal of Communication Disorders, 79, 46-57. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcomdis.2019.03.002.
Schramm, W.L. (1954) How communication works. In: Schramm, W.L. (Ed.) The process and effects of mass communication. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, pp. 3-26.
Schuller, B., Steidl, S., Batliner, A., Burkhardt, F., Devillers, L., Müller, C. & Narayanan, S. (2013) Paralinguistics in speech and language-State-of-the-art and the challenge. Computer Speech and Language, 27, 4-39. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csl.2012.02.005.
Schuller, B., Weninger, F., Zhang, Y., Ringeval, F., Batliner, A., Steidl, S., Eyben, F., Marchi, E., Vinciarelli, A., Scherer, K., Chetouani, M. & Mortillaro, M. (2019) Affective and behavioural computing: lessons learnt from the first computational paralinguistics challenge. Computer Speech and Language, 53, 156-180. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csl.2018.02.004.
Sinha, I.P., Smyth, R.L. & Williamson, P.R. (2011) Using the Delphi technique to determine which outcomes to measure in clinical trials: recommendations for the future based on a systematic review of existing studies. PLoS Medicine, 8(1), e1000393. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000393.
Smith, L.E. & Nelson, C.L. (1985) International intelligibility of English: directions and resources. World Englishes, 4, 333-342. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-971X.1985.tb00423.x.
Thomson, R. (2018) Measurement of accentedness, intelligibility, and comprehensibility. In: Kang, O. & Ginther, A. (Eds.) Assessment in second language pronunciation. London: Routledge, pp. 11-29. Available from: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315170756-2.
Walsh, I., McNeilly, L., Kent, R., Fotheringham, S., Patterson, A., Behlau, M., Walsh, I., Ormond, T., Robb, M., Enderby, P., Bradd, T. & Walsh, R. (2006) A history of the terminology of communication sciences and disorders. Australian Federal Government Department of Education, Science and Training, 1-29. Available from: http://www.dhrs.uct.ac.za/sites/default/files/image_tool/images/147/History_of_CSD.pdf.
Walsh, R. (2005) Meaning and purpose: a conceptual model for speech pathology terminology. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 7, 65-76. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/14417040500125285.
Wood, K.S. (1971) Terminology and nomenclature. In: Travis, L. E. (Ed.) Handbook of speech pathology and audiology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, p. 3.
Yorkston, K.M., Strand, E.A. & Kennedy, M.R.T. (1996) Comprehensibility of dysarthric speech. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 5, 55-66. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1044/1058-0360.0501.55.