Biomedical subjects

Thomas W Powell

Publications and source records attributed to Thomas W Powell.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMedDate not supplied

Electronic publishing: opportunities and challenges for clinical linguistics and phonetics.

This paper discusses the contributions of informatics technology to the field of clinical linguistics and phonetics. The electronic publication of research reports and books has facilitated both the dissemination and the retrieval of scientific information. Electronic archives of speech and language corpora, too, stimulate research efforts. Although technology provides many opportunities, there remain significant challenges. Establishment and maintenance of scientific archives is largely dependent upon volunteer efforts, and there are few standards to ensure long-term access. Coordinated efforts and peer review are necessary to ensure utility and quality.

Humans↗

PubMedDate not supplied

A comparison of English reading passages for elicitation of speech samples from clinical populations.

Oral reading passages are often used to elicit speech samples from clinical populations. Few objective guidelines exist, however, to guide one's selection from among the many existing passages. Therefore, this study was undertaken to describe phonetic, lexical, and structural characteristics of 15 oral reading passages. The passages differed markedly in the demands that they placed upon the speaker (i.e., length and complexity), as well as the adequacy of the phonetic sample.

Humans↗

PubMedDate not supplied

A reliability study of BDAE-3 discourse coding.

The third edition of the Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination (Goodglass, Kaplan, and Barresi) introduced standardized procedures for coding discourse samples elicited using the well known Cookie Theft illustration. To evaluate the reliability of this discourse coding procedure, a transcribed sample was coded by 14 novice examiners using the Goodglass et al. coding criteria. Percentage of agreement scores between novice and expert coders were poor (with an average of <50% agreement). This paper describes factors that may have contributed to the poor interjudge agreement, and one approach to improving agreement is described.

Adult↗