A COMPREHENSIVE MEASURE OF CLUTTERING SEVERITY
Klaas Bakker Missouri State University
Florence L. Myers
Adelphi University
1
INTRODUCTION
y most clinical disciplines have severity measures
y lack of a measure for cluttering severity
y severity measures needed for clinical practice
y severity measures needed for cluttering research
y caveat: circularity of developing measures that are both reliable and valid
y Purpose of our presentation …
2
PURPOSE
Lay the ground work for how cluttering severity may be determined:
o comprehensive
o flexible
o quantified
o reliability and validity may be determined
o consistent with a commonly quoted definition of cluttering
o a work in progress …., open to a developing evidence base
3
CASE DEMONSTRATIONS
y DVD on Cluttering (SFA)
y S 23
4
(St. Louis, Myers, Bakker and Raphael 2007)
¾ Rate perceived to be abnormally rapid, irregular or both
¾ Number of disfluencies the majority of which are unlike stuttering ( i.e., mostly “typical” disfluencies)
¾ Pauses that do not conform to linguistic constraints
¾ Inappropriate use of prosodic patterns
¾ Inappropriate coarticulation
5
Van Riper (in Myers and St. Louis 1992):
“Listening to him was like watching fish in a feeding frenzy.”
6
¾ Inappropriate prosodic patterns
¾ Inappropriate pausing
¾ Excessive disfluencies
7
I’m going to say this sentence in three ways (pause)
the first with pausing at clause boundaries (pause)
and the second way with inappropriate pausing (pause) giving rise to the perception of choppiness
or irregularity of rate.
8
I’m going ‐
to say this sentence in ‐
three ways, the first with ‐
pausing at clause boundaries and the ‐
second with inappropriate pausing giving ‐
rise to the perception of ‐
choppiness or irregularity of rate
9
I’m going to um say well you know this thought, no
sentence in two well maybe three‐‐no two ways
the first with um pausing at clause boundaries
and let’s see the second with wrong‐‐well not wrong but inappropriate pausing giving rise to the perception of choppiness or well sort of like
irregularity of rate
10
Typical rather than atypical or stuttering‐like disfluencies)
¾Interjections
¾Incomplete phrases or words
¾Revisions
¾Hesitations
¾Word and phrase repetitions
11
“Klaas, jeet?”
“Shrdin’t!”
12
How well do we understand the client’s overall speech?
13
Reduced coherence and cohesion of monologue or narrative (organization of larger chunks of talk) 14
¾ Ability to detect breakdowns
¾
¾
¾
¾
Ability to repair breakdowns
Interruptions of partner’s turns
Poor presuppositional skills
Monopolizing a conversation
15
Three‐Level Cluttering Severity Instrument
y Follows a commonly used current definition
y Allows for quantification of behaviors
y Can be used with relative ease
y Adaptable to the needs of clinicians and researchers using a three‐level approach from molar to more molecular analyses
Three‐Level Severity Assessment
y Level I: o Molar/perceptual o % talking time cluttered
o Severity in terms of duration of time cluttered o Does not assess severity of individual facets of cluttering Level II: Perceptual Ratings
y Rapid rate
y Irregular rate
y Inappropriate prosody
y Excessive use of typical disfluencies
y Poor clarity of speech (imprecise articulatory gestures)
y Reduced overall speech intelligibility
y Poor language organization
y Inappropriate management of discourse
y # typical disfluencies/minute talk time
y more dimensions to be captured in future, including: y # of incohesive ties/minute talk time
y # of pauses that violate linguistic constraints
y type/token analysis of typical disfluencies
20
Start CLASP here
y Recordings are played outside of computer program
y Automatic talking time is manually determined while also measuring cluttering time at the same time
y Cannot make corrections afterwards
y Organization of program not amenable to Level 1, 2 or 3 scoring.
21
The new program: Level I
One measure: % talking time cluttered
Step 1. Obtain a representative digital sample
Step 2. Transferring the file to the computer program (talking time is calculated)
Step 3. Identifying non ‐
cluttered speech
22
Level II: Level I + perceptual ratings
23
Level III:
y Will contain additional tools for specialized analyses needed for research or unique clinical situations
y # typical disfluencies/ talking time is available at this time
24
The Paper and Pencil
version (and printout of
the software).
25
Discussion:
Caveats:
‐ Depends on one definition
‐ Diagnostic classification “cluttering” not completely established and researched
‐ PWC normalize with attention for speaking
‐ PWC often have coexisting conditions (e.g., stuttering)
26