Cited by 11Voice and Speech DisordersHearing Loss and RehabilitationPhonetics and Phonology Research

Progress toward estimating the minimal clinically important difference of intelligibility: a crowdsourced perceptual experiment

Open access
Stipancic, Kaila L., van Brenk, Frits, Qiu, Mengyang, Tjaden, Kris·2025·Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of the current study was to estimate the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of sentence intelligibility in control speakers and in speakers with dysarthria due to multiple sclerosis (MS) and Parkinson's disease (PD). Method: Sixteen control speakers, 16 speakers with MS, and 16 speakers with PD were audio-recorded reading aloud sentences in habitual, clear, fast, loud, and slow speaking conditions. Two hundred forty nonexpert crowdsourced listeners heard paired conditions of the same sentence content from a speaker and indicated if one condition was more understandable than another. Listeners then used the Global Ratings of Change (GROC) Scale to indicate how much more understandable that condition was than the other. Listener ratings were compared with objective intelligibility scores obtained previously via orthographic transcriptions from nonexpert listeners. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and average magnitude of intelligibility difference per level of the GROC Scale were evaluated to determine the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of potential cutoff scores in intelligibility for establishing thresholds of important change. Results: MCIDs derived from the ROC curves were invalid. However, the average magnitude of intelligibility difference derived valid and useful thresholds. The MCID of intelligibility was determined to be about 7% for a small amount of difference and about 15% for a large amount of difference. Conclusions: This work demonstrates the feasibility of the novel experimental paradigm for collecting crowdsourced perceptual data to estimate MCIDs. Results provide empirical evidence that clinical tools for the perception of intelligibility by nonexpert listeners could consist of three categories, which emerged from the data (“no difference,” “a little bit of difference,” “a lot of difference”). The current work is a critical step toward development of a universal language with which to evaluate changes in intelligibility as a result of neurological injury, disease progression, and speech-language therapy.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1044/2024_jslhr-24-00354

Cites

63 of 63 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Beukelman, D. R., Fager, S., Ullman, C., Hanson, E., & Logemann, J. (2002). The impact of speech supplementation and clear speech on the intelligibility and speaking rate of people with traumatic brain injury. Journal of Medical Speech-Language Pathology, 10(4), 237-242.
  2. Chen, A., Frankowski, R., Bishop-Leone, J., Hebert, T., Leyk, S., Lewin, J., & Goepfert, H. (2001). The development and vali- dation of a dysphagia-specific quality-of-life questionnaire for patients with head and neck cancer. Archives of Otolaryngology- Head & Neck Surgery, 127(7), 870-876.
  3. 0b013e3181d3cfc9 · DOI
  4. Robin, X., Turck, N., Hainard, A., Tiberti, N., Lisacek, F., Sanchez, J.-C., Markus, M., Siegert, S., Doering, M., & Billings, Z. (2023). Package "pROC."

Cited by

Sorted by citations

  • Efficacy of Digital Speech Therapy for Poststroke Dysarthria: Randomized Noninferiority Trial

    Kim, Y., Kim, M., Kim, S., Kim, J., Shin, J.-H., Chang, Y., Na, J. Y., Kim, J., & Song, T.-J. (2026) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/81938

    “In the present sample, the mean improvement in the workbook-based control arm was 7.17 points, which aligns with the lower bound of the cited minimal clinically important difference range [41]; this should be considered when interpreting the strength of the noninferiority inference [44].”
    Influential

Authors
Stipancic, K. L., van Brenk, F., Qiu, M., & Tjaden, K.
Affiliations
  • University at Buffalo, State University of New York (US)
  • Department of Communicative Disorders and Sciences, University at Buffalo, New York
  • Trent University (CA)
Venue
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research
Published
2025-07-29
Volume
68
Issue
7S
Pages
3480-3494
ISSN
  • 1092-4388 (ISSN-L)
  • 1558-9102
OpenAlex
W4403761734
Cited by
11
References
63
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 3
FWCI
3.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (R01DC004689)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Voice and Speech Disorders
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Hearing Loss and Rehabilitation
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Phonetics and Phonology Research
Keywords
minimal clinically important difference, sentence intelligibility, dysarthria, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's disease, speech rate, loudness
MeSH terms
Minimal Clinically Important Difference, Adult, Aged, Dysarthria, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Multiple Sclerosis, Parkinson Disease, ROC Curve, Speech Intelligibility, Speech Perception, Crowdsourcing

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review