Coincidences and divergences between audio transcription and textualization

PURPOSE:

investigate coincidences and divergences between audio transcription and textualization in order to check for statistical evidence which may be a justification as to the best procedure to be applied.

METHODS:

retrospective study. 30 audios were selected randomly among the 239 available audios, proceeding from telephone intercepts of the same lawsuit. We considered: the number of words and time in minutes for each audio, and the comparative analysis for maintaining the main content highlights. Three Speech Pathologists transcribed and textualized different parts of the file, ensuring independence. A Speech Pathologists, who did not attend the previous step, conducted content analysis. For statistical analysis we used Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test in R environment, with Tinn R interface. Significance level 5% (0.05). CEP: 274-742.

RESULTS:

the mean number of words used in of audio file transcription was 27% greater than the number of words used in textualization, p=0.52. The mean time in minutes required to perform the transcription was significantly higher p=0.013. In the comparative analysis as for the maintenance of the main content highlights, we found that on average 93% of highlights were kept, p=0.61%.

CONCLUSION:

the similarities among the of transcription and textualization processes were compared with the median number of words and the maintenance as for the median number of content highlights. There was divergence as for the implementation time, significantly lower in textualization. Considering the data obtained in this study, textualization process proved to be the most suitable in audio de-recording.

Voice; Speech, Language and Hearing Sciences; Language; Forensic Sciences