Cited by 1Language Development and DisordersPhonetics and Phonology ResearchVoice and Speech Disorders

Listening like a speech-training app: Expert and non-expert listeners’ goodness ratings of children’s speech

Open access
Strömbergsson, Sofia, Fröjdh, Molly, Pettersson, Magdalena, Grósz, Tamás, Getman, Yaroslav, Kurimo, Mikko·2025·Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics

Abstract

Speech training apps are being developed that provide automatic feedback concerning children's production of known target words, as a score on a 1-5 scale. However, this 'goodness' scale is still poorly understood. We investigated listeners' ratings of 'how many stars the app should provide as feedback' on children's utterances, and whether listener agreement is affected by clinical experience and/or access to anchor stimuli. In addition, we explored the association between goodness ratings and clinical measures of speech accuracy; the Percentage of Consonants Correct (PCC) and the Percentage of Phonemes Correct (PPC). Twenty speech-language pathologists and 20 non-expert listeners participated; half of the listeners in each group had access to anchor stimuli. The listeners rated 120 words, collected from children with and without speech sound disorder. Concerning reliability, intra-rater agreement was generally high, whereas inter-rater agreement was moderate. Access to anchor stimuli was associated with higher agreement, but only for non-expert listeners. Concerning the association between goodness ratings and the PCC/PPC, correlations were moderate for both listener groups, under both conditions. The results indicate that the task of rating goodness is difficult, regardless of clinical experience, and that access to anchor stimuli is insufficient for achieving reliable ratings. This raises concerns regarding the 1-5 rating scale as the means of feedback in speech training apps. More specific listener instructions, particularly regarding the intended context for the app, are suggested in collection of human ratings underlying the development of speech training apps. Until then, alternative means of feedback should be preferred.

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 · 10.1080/02699206.2024.2355470

Cites

58 of 58 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

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Strömbergsson, S., Fröjdh, M., Pettersson, M., Grósz, T., Getman, Y., & Kurimo, M.
Affiliations
  • Karolinska Institutet (SE)
  • Aalto University (FI)
Corresponding author
Strömbergsson, Sofia
Venue
Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics
Published
2024-06-09
Volume
39
Issue
2
Pages
144-165
ISSN
  • 0269-9206 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-5076
OpenAlex
W4399506378
Cited by
1
References
58
Citations by year
2025: 1
FWCI
0.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Aaltodoc (Aalto University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
NordForsk (103893)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Phonetics and Phonology Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Voice and Speech Disorders
Keywords
listener ratings, speech sound disorders, children's speech, automated feedback, interobserver agreement, intraobserver agreement, speech-language pathologists, speech accuracy, rating scale reliability
MeSH terms
Adult, Child, Child, Preschool, Female, Humans, Male, Phonetics, Speech, Speech-Language Pathology, Speech Perception, Speech Therapy, Reproducibility of Results, Mobile Applications, Speech Sound Disorder

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