List of sentences in Portuguese: speech perception evaluation in children

Murari, Tatiana Cristina; Frederigue-Lopes, Natália Barreto; Santos, Flávia Rodrigues dos; Delgado-Pinheiro, Eliane Maria Carrit

doi:10.1590/1982-0216/20222459122

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

ORIGINAL ARTICLES • Rev. CEFAC 24 (5) • 2022 • https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-0216/20222459122 copy

List of sentences in Portuguese: speech perception evaluation in children

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

ABSTRACT

Purpose:

to develop lists of sentences in Brazilian Portuguese based on daily vocabulary to evaluate auditory speech perception in children.

Methods:

a Brazilian Portuguese corpus with adaptations to attend the criteria established for this study and analyzed by judges was used to obtain the sentences. Thirty-seven lists, each composed of thirteen sentences with fifty phonological keywords, were constructed. The material was presented to ten children, aged between 6 and 10 years, with no hearing or communication complaints. The Friedman test was applied to verify possible differences among the lists. The level of significance adopted was 5% (0.05).

Results:

the mean speech recognition index presented by the participants was 96.8% for all lists. The thirty-seven lists were considered statistically similar (p=0.140).

Conclusion:

the developed material proved to contain sentences that represent situations of children’s day-to-day communication and its application is easy and quick.

Keywords:
Speech Perception; Auditory Perception; Child; Hearing Tests; Hearing Loss

Stage: Reduction of the corpus
First analysis:		Second analysis:
Excluded items:	Other alterations:	Excluded items:	Other alterations:
• Shifts of the evaluator; • Codes used in the transcription; • Meaningless phrases; • Incomplete sentences (children’s responses to the evaluator’s speech); • Phrases repeated by the same child; • Phrases that represented the demonstration, a drawing made by the child; • Phrases that narrated the figures in sequence (resulted in many repeated sentences, because the same sequence of figures was used); • Phrases produced as a function of reading (since they are not spontaneous productions of the children); • Words repeated in the same sentence; • Expressions characteristic of spoken language (aí terminou, acontece que, só que, assim, ó) (then it ended, it turns out that, only that, like that).	• Separation of paragraphs into sentences, considering the beginning marked by an introductory word (daí, então, um dia, depois) (hence, then, one day, after) and the final points, characterizing the beginning of a new sentence or fact; • Separation of long compound periods.	• Phrases with transitive verb, but meaningless and without complement; • Paragraphs in which a child was encouraged to repeat to another child what they had told the evaluator; • Interrogative phrases; • Very extensive sentences, with no possibility of reduction, because, when possible, the sentence was divided; • Confusing phrases or those that only made sense from the context.	• Substitution of words characteristic of the regional dialect; • Substitution of little-known words or those that characterized slang; • Addition of a word that performed the same function in the sentence without altering the agreement and verbal tense when the sentence did not present a subject (e.g.: the child’s answers to the evaluator’s question); • Replacing proper names with words that exercised the same function in the sentence.
Stage: Analysis of the sentences by the judges
First analysis:		Second analysis:
Judges:	Alterations:	Judges:	Alterations:
• Three judges (speech therapists)	• Only sentences not excluded by any of the judges were selected	• Two judges (speech therapists)	• Exclusion of phrases considered inappropriate for the purpose of the study
Stage: Final analysis
Excluded items:		Other alterations:
• Phrases unrelated to the study criteria; • The pronoun “I” in some sentences, so that it would not harm the phrasal structure, that is, the verbal conjugation was not altered, and the phrase should contain some element that indicated the subject “I” (example: my, mine).		•Correction of Portuguese so that it does not compromise the naturalness of the sentences; • Modification of uncommon expressions (“o pai”, “a mãe”, “o vô”, “a vó” were changed to “papai”, “mamãe”, “vovô” e “vovó”) (“father - mother - grandfather - grandmother” were changed to “Daddy, Mommy, Grandpa and Grandma”).

ABRAMO Associação Brasileira de Motricidade Orofacial Rua Uruguaiana, 516, Cep 13026-001 Campinas SP Brasil, Tel.: +55 19 3254-0342 - São Paulo - SP - Brazil
E-mail: revistacefac@cefac.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] Corresponding address: Eliane Maria Carrit Delgado-Pinheiro, Departamento de Fonoaudiologia, Universidade Estadual Paulista “Júlio de Mesquita Filho” - UNESP, Avenida Hygino Muzzi Filho, 737 - Mirante, CEP: 17525-900 - Marília, São Paulo, Brasil, E-mail: eliane.delgado@unesp.br