Research Article

Examining the Validity and Reliability of Persian version of Speech Prosody Comprehension Test in Children

Development of Persian version of Speech Prosody Comprehension Test in children

Abstract

Background and aim: Speech prosody, the nonlinguistic elements of speech that convey emotions, is crucial for social interactions and speech comprehension. This study aimed to investigate the Validity and reliability of the Speech Prosody Comprehension Test (SPCT) for Persian-speaking children aged 7-10.
Method: The Persian version of the Speech Prosody Comprehension Test (P-SPCT) was investigated. Face, construct, and discriminant validity, Test-retest reliability, and Internal consistency were examined on 32 children in age 7-10 with 22 (mean age ± SD = 8.63 ± 1.04) normal hearing and 10 (mean age ± SD = 9.20 ± 0.78)with cochlear implant )CI).
Results: Our result demonstrated good face validity. Construct validity revealed strong correlations in intra-sub score items and between subscales and the total score. A significant difference in mean scores was found between normal hearing and cochlear implant user, supporting discriminant validity (P<0.001). High test-retest reliability was demonstrated, with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) ranging from 0.91 to 0.99 for total and all subscales. The measure demonstrated good internal consistency, with a Cronbach's alpha 0.89 for total score.
Conclusion: The Persian version of Speech Prosody Comprehension Test was found to be a valid and reliable clinical tool for assessing speech prosody comprehension in children aged 7-10. Further research with larger samples can confirm the generalizability of these findings.

1. Bartsch A, Hübner S. Towards a Theory of Emotional Communication. CLCWeb-Comp Lit Cult. 2005;7(4):2. [DOI:10.7771/1481-4374.1278]
2. Grandjean D. Brain Networks of Emotional Prosody Processing. Emot Rev. 2021;13(1):34-43. [DOI:10.1177/1754073919898522]
3. Ben-David BM, Multani N, Shakuf V, Rudzicz F, van Lieshout PH. Prosody and Semantics Are Separate but Not Separable Channels in the Perception of Emotional Speech: Test for Rating of Emotions in Speech. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2016;59(1):72-89. [DOI:10.1044/2015_JSLHR-H-14-0323]
4. Erickson D. Expressive speech: Production, perception and application to speech synthesis. Acoust Sci Technol. 2005;26(4):317-25. [DOI:10.1250/ast.26.317]
5. Everhardt MK, Sarampalis A, Coler M, Başkent D, Lowie W. Meta-Analysis on the Identification of Linguistic and Emotional Prosody in Cochlear Implant Users and Vocoder Simulations. Ear Hear. 2020;41(5):1092-102. [DOI:10.1097/AUD.0000000000000863]
6. Taitelbaum-Swead R, Icht M, Ben-David BM. More Than Words: the Relative Roles of Prosody and Semantics in the Perception of Emotions in Spoken Language by Postlingual Cochlear Implant Users. Ear Hear. 2022;43(4):1378-89. [DOI:10.1097/AUD.0000000000001199]
7. Kulkarni AM, Combs J; Fitzpatrick D, Chatterjee M. Utilization of acoustic cues to identify emotional prosody: Results in adults with normal hearing or cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am. 2023;153(3 Suppl):A48. [DOI:10.1121/10.0018113]
8. Pak CL, Katz WF. Recognition of emotional prosody by Mandarin-speaking adults with cochlear implants. J Acoust Soc Am. 2019;146(2):EL165. [DOI:10.1121/1.5122192]
9. Yeshoda K, Raveendran R, Konadath S. Perception of vocal emotional prosody in children with hearing impairment. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2020;137:110252. [DOI:10.1016/j.ijporl.2020.110252]
10. Maner-Idrissi GL, Bissaoui SLS, Dardier V, Codet M, Botte-Bonneton N, Delahaye F, et al. Emotional Speech Comprehension in Deaf Children with Cochlear Implant. Psychol Lang Commun. 2020;24(1):44-69.
11. van den Broek EL. Emotional Prosody Measurement (EPM): a voice-based evaluation method for psychological therapy effectiveness. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2004;103:118-25. [DOI:10.3233/978-1-60750-946-2-118]
12. Torke Ladani N, Agharasouli Z, Ashayeri H, Mahmoudi Bakhtiyari B, Kamali M, Ziatabar Ahmadi SZ. [Development, validity and reliability of the speech prosody comprehension test]. Audiol. 2012;21(1):69-75. Persian.
13. Kao C, Zhang Y. The development of emotional speech prosody perception in 3- to 14-month infants: a preferential listening study. J Acoust Soc Am. 2019;145(3 Suppl):1764. [DOI:10.1121/1.5101459]
14. Myers BR, Lense MD, Gordon RL. Pushing the Envelope: Developments in Neural Entrainment to Speech and the Biological Underpinnings of Prosody Perception. Brain Sci. 2019;9(3):70. [DOI:10.3390/brainsci9030070]
15. Hawthorne K, Mazuka R, Gerken L. The acoustic salience of prosody trumps infants' acquired knowledge of language-specific prosodic patterns. J Mem Lang. 2015;82:105-17. [DOI:10.1016/j.jml.2015.03.005]
16. Pronina M, Hübscher I, Vilà-Giménez I, Prieto P. Pragmatic prosody development from 3 to 8 years of age: A cross-sectional study in Catalan. In: Speech Prosody 2022. ISCA: ISCA; 2022. p. 92-6. [DOI:10.21437/speechprosody.2022-19]
17. Veenendaal NJ, Groen MA, Verhoeven L. The role of speech prosody and text reading prosody in children's reading comprehension. Br J Educ Psychol. 2014;84(Pt 4):521-36. [DOI:10.1111/bjep.12036]
18. Cutler A, Dahan D, van Donselaar W. Prosody in the comprehension of spoken language: a literature review. Lang Speech. 1997;40( Pt 2):141-201. [DOI:10.1177/002383099704000203]
Files
IssueArticles in Press QRcode
SectionResearch Article(s)
Keywords
Speech Prosody Comprehension Test children Validity Reliability Cochlear implant Speech prosody
Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
1.
Sayadi N, Farahani S, Fatahi F, Rahimi V, Jalaie S, Khodami SM. Examining the Validity and Reliability of Persian version of Speech Prosody Comprehension Test in Children. Aud Vestib Res. 2025;.