View
5
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
138 Contemporary Issues In CommunICatIon sCIenCe and dIsorders • Volume 42 • 138–154 • Spring 2015
ABSTRACT: Purpose: The aims of this review were to identify and describe the assessment tools that have been developed to assess prosodic skills in children and adults and to evaluate the clinical utility of the tools. Method: Currently available tools were identified through searching 4 online databases and bibliogra-phies of relevant articles and by contacting authors.Results: Nine assessment tools were identified. The tools were appraised for their intended purpose, tar-get population, domains of prosody assessed, validity, reliability, and normative sample data. The purpose of development and the content of the tools were well
O
Contemporary Issues In CommunICatIon sCIenCe and dIsorders • Volume 42 • 138–154 • Spring 2015 © NSSLHA 1092-5171/15/4201-0138
Behavioral Measures to Evaluate Prosodic Skills: A Review of Assessment Tools for Children and Adults
Rose Thomas KalathottukarenSuzanne C. Purdy Elaine BallardThe University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
ver the past few decades, there has been considerable progress in identify-ing descriptive frameworks to explain
prosody and its communicative functions. Progress has been made in the following areas: classification of prosodic disorders, acquisition of prosody, neuro-logical bases of prosodic impairments, significance of prosody in relation to language processing, and relationship between prosody and other aspects of speech (Crystal, 2009; Grigos & Patel, 2007, 2010; Patel & Brayton, 2009; Patel & Grigos, 2006; Pep-pé, 2009). However, not many studies have focused
on the areas of prosody assessment and intervention, and little consideration has been given to prosody evaluation in clinical settings (Crystal, 2009; Peppé, 2009).
Peppé (2009) reported that the lack of clar-ity regarding prosodic terminologies, problems of identifying prosody as distinct from other aspects of communication, and lack of empirical information on the acquisition of prosody makes assessment difficult in disordered populations. Crystal (2009) pointed out that there is inadequate assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of prosodic impairments and negligence
documented, but data on how feasible they were to use in practice were scarce. Each tool met some but not all of the widely accepted criteria for validity and reliability. Most have not been sufficiently well tested for use in routine clinical practice.Conclusion: This review highlights the need to continue to develop and test tools for the effective and comprehensive assessment of prosodic skills in children and adults.
KEY WORDS: PEPS–C, DANVA 2, FAB, MNTAP, Aprosodia Battery, ACS, PPAT
Kalathottukaren et al.: Prosody Assessment Tools 139
on the part of clinicians in making efforts to assess prosody in client populations.
Following Crystal (2009), we found that there are no published papers that have systematically evalu-ated and compiled the various tools that are available to assess prosodic skills in children and adults. It is surprising that this lack of literature on assessment tools exists despite the fact that prosodic difficulties extend across a wide range of communication disor-ders such as autism spectrum disorder (ASD; Green & Tobin, 2009; McCann & Peppé, 2003), specific language impairment (SLI; Marshall, Harcourt-Brown, Ramus, & van der Lely, 2009; Stojanovik, Setter, & Ewijk, 2007), Parkinson’s disease (Martens et al., 2011), apraxia (Odell & Shriberg, 2001), apha-sia (Danly & Shapiro, 1982), brain injury (Karow, Marquardt, & Marshall, 2001; Moen, 2009; Ross, Edmondson, Seibert, & Homan, 1988), and hearing loss (Nakata, Trehub, & Kanda, 2012; Peng, Tomblin, & Turner, 2008).
Theoretical approaches to explaining prosody (phonetic and phonological perspectives) and the differences in prosody error profile across clinical populations may have contributed to the development of different assessment approaches. Pitch, duration, and stress are the phonetic correlates of prosody. The physical correlates of these features are the speech’s fundamental frequency (F0), syllable duration, and intensity, respectively. Phonological correlates of prosody include the variations in pitch, length, and loudness that are produced in speech for conveying subtle changes in the meaning of spoken messages independent of words and grammatical order (Roach, 2000). In other words, stress and intonation are used to convey the grammatical, affective, and pragmatic functions of language.
Methods for assessing disordered prosody can be classified into instrumental approaches, includ-ing software applications, and approaches to measure prosodic functions. Instrumental approaches involving acoustic analysis (e.g., PRAAT, Boersma, & Weenink, 2001; EMU, Bombien, Cassidy, Harrington, John, & Palethorpe, 2006) focus on displaying and quan-tifying the relevant acoustic correlates of prosody (Shriberg, Kwiatkowski, Rasmussen, Lof, & Miller, 1992), whereas prosodic function measures assess the phonological or communicative aspects of prosody. The autosegmental metrical framework for intona-tional analysis (Pierrehumbert, 1980) and the related transcription systems such as ToBI and IViE (Grabe, Nolan, & Farrar, 1998) provide options for prosodic labeling.
Earlier studies on communication disorders have evaluated prosody in terms of its acoustic dimensions. More recently, emphasizing the role of
prosody in communicative efficiency, the assess-ment of functions of prosody has been advocated rather than quantifying F0, duration, and intensity parameters (e.g., Profiling Elements of Prosody in Speech-Communication [PEPS–C], Peppé & McCann, 2003; Diagnostic Analysis of Nonverbal Accuracy 2 [DANVA 2], Nowicki & Duke, 1994). The choice of instrumental or prosodic function measures to assess prosody should depend on the prosodic difficulties of the clinical population being assessed. Several studies have acoustically analyzed echolalia, imitative and spontaneous speech in conversation, and narratives in children, adolescents, and adults with ASD and have found important prosodic differences in the variance of F0; duration of syllables; use of prosodic contours (Diehl & Paul, 2009; Green & Tobin, 2009); and coordination of prosodic cues such as pitch, duration, and amplitude (Van Santen, Prud’hommeaux, Black, & Mitchell, 2010).
Diehl and Paul (2013) conducted acoustic and perceptual measurements of prosody production by children with ASD and reported that differences in acoustic parameters were present in the speech of the group with ASD even when the different aspects of prosody were perceived accurately. Inaccurate produc-tion of acoustic features, such as excessive or misas-signed pitch, slow syllable-timed speech, fast rate of speech, and monoloudness, have been reported in indi-viduals with apraxia of speech (Barry, 1995), PD (Pen-ner, Miller, Hertrich, Ackermann, & Schumm, 2001; Ma, Whitehill, & Cheung, 2010) and other communi-cation disorders (Shriberg et al., 2001). Darley, Aron-son, and Brown (1969, 1975) reported that prosodic deficits play a significant role in the characterization of motor speech disorders. Prosodic deficits were also re-ported as a core feature of childhood apraxia of speech by the American Speech-Language-Hearing Associa-tion (ASHA, 2007). In general, inaccurate prosody productions affect an individual’s speech intelligibility (Chin, Bergeson, & Phan, 2012; Klopfenstein, 2009; Mayo, Aubanel, & Cooke, 2012).
This review focuses on assessment tools that are used to probe for the communicative aspects of prosody. The functions of prosody are identified at the indexical, grammatical, affective, and pragmatic levels of communication. Indexical information is in-formation that is related to the age, identity, and gen-der of the speaker (Paul, Augustyn, Klin, & Volkmar, 2005; Romero-Trillo & Newell, 2012; Stojanovik, 2010). The grammatical functions of prosody include (a) determining the boundaries of phrases, clauses, or sentences, particularly when there is ambiguity (e.g., /FRUIT, SALAD and MILK/ vs. /FRUIT-SALAD and MILK/; Wells & Peppé, 2003) and (b) differentiat-ing between word classes when there are homonyms
140 Contemporary Issues In CommunICatIon sCIenCe and dIsorders • Volume 42 • 138–154 • Spring 2015
(e.g., a noun and verb that sound the same but are differentiated by prosody; greenhouse vs. green house; Klieve & Jeanes, 2001).
The affective function of prosody is the use of prosodic features such as pitch contour, pauses, and word stress to express the speaker’s emotions and at-titudes (Peppé, 2009; Roach, 2000). Prosodic patterns convey different emotions (Banse & Scherer, 1996; Juslin & Laukka, 2003). Happiness, for example, is characterized by a fast speaking rate, rising pitch, high variability, and fast voice onsets, and sadness is nearly the opposite (Hirschberg, 2002). The use of prosodic patterns to convey discourse functions is the pragmatic aspect of prosody. Prosody is used to sig-nal to the listener what is to be taken as new infor-mation and what is already given. Prosody also helps the listener to distinguish between questions, state-ments, and commands (Roach, 2000). A variety of prosodic features are used by speakers to indicate to others that they have finished speaking, that another person is expected to speak, that a particular type of response is required, and so on. For example, a rising tone at the end of an utterance typically indicates that a response is required, and a falling tone suggests the end of a conversation (McCann & Peppé, 2003).
It is important to note that researchers have reported the overlapping functions of these different aspects of prosody. For example, the use of prosody to distinguish between question and statement was classified as a grammatical function by Paul et al. (2005), whereas Wells and Peppé (2003) described it as the pragmatic aspect of prosody. Diehl and Paul (2009) reported that the use of prosody to distinguish between question and statement can fit into both categories as it conveys the sentence type and also signals a type of mental state or intent of discourse (either the end of a conversation or a particular re-sponse is required).
Although there are differences in classification, it is widely recognized that the accurate perception and production of the ranging aspects of prosody are a significant component of successful social commu-nication (Aziz-Zadeh, Sheng, & Gheytanchi, 2010). Difficulties in perceiving the communicative aspects of prosody as well as deficits in prosody productions have been reported in children with hearing loss by several researchers (Meister, Landwehr, Pyschny, Wal-ger, and von Wedel, 2009; Nakata et al., 2012; Peng et al., 2008). Hence, the combined use of instrumen-tal techniques and prosodic function measures to as-sess prosodic skills is advised for this population.
Certain aspects of prosody are more relevant than others in specific client groups. For example, prosody evaluation in adults with neurological and psychiat-ric impairments has mainly focused on investigating
the perception and production of affective prosodic skills (Moen, 2009; Wildgruber, Ethofer, Grandjean, & Kreifelts, 2009), whereas the evaluation of gram-matical, affective, and pragmatic aspects of prosody is relevant in individuals with hearing loss, ASD, and SLI. The important communicative functions of prosody and evidence for prosodic deficits in vari-ous speech-language and hearing disorders makes it important to assess prosodic skills in both typical and clinical populations.
Diehl and Paul (2009) compared three prosody assessment measures—the Prosody Profile (PROP; Crystal, 1982), Prosody-Voice Screening Profile (PVSP; Shriberg, Kwiatkowski, & Rasmussen, 1990), and PEPS–C—to the other well-established methods of assessing language, such as the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test—Fourth Edition (PPVT–IV; Dunn & Dunn, 2007) and the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals—Fourth Edition (CELF–1V; Semel, Wiig, & Secord, 2003). Diehl and Paul reported that there are no analogous data on the typical develop-mental sequence of prosody acquisition and adequate psychometrics derived from studies of spontaneous language use. Diehl and Paul also reported that there is a need for a prosody assessment tool that (a) has a representative normative sample and strong psycho-metric properties, (b) is based on empirical infor-mation regarding the typical sequence of prosodic acquisition and is developmentally sensitive, (c) as-sesses various domains of prosody, (d) uses tasks that have high ecological validity, and (e) has established clinical utility.
We decided to review the available published assessment tools that are used to assess prosodic skills in children and adults, explaining the different domains of prosody that can be assessed using these tools, and providing information on the normative data and psychometric properties of each tool and its clinical utility. This review provides clinicians and researchers with information that will enable them to select the appropriate tool(s) for the assessment of prosodic skills in children and adults.
METhOd
Literature Search StrategyWe conducted a review of literature to identify clini-cal and research tools that have been developed so far to assess prosodic skills in children and adults. The goal was to identify tools with established reli-ability, validity, and normative data. We entered the search terms in Table 1 in different combinations into four online databases: ScienceDirect, SCOPUS,
Kalathottukaren et al.: Prosody Assessment Tools 141
Web of Science, and PsycINFO. We also conducted manual searches of the bibliographies of published reviews and articles and contacted test developers to gain additional information regarding the tools. Inter-library loan facilities at the University of Auckland were used to access unpublished dissertation work.
Assessment Tool Inclusion/Exclusion CriteriaWe included assessment tools that were published in English and that were developed for use with in-dividuals with acquired neurological disorders and psychiatric disorders, even though these tend to be components of a larger test battery and thus are less comprehensive than the larger battery. Tools that were translated from English to other languages or were developed in languages other than English were excluded from this review (e.g., Foley, Gibbon, & Peppé, 2011; Ladani et al., 2012; Martînez-Cas-tilla & Peppé, 2008; Torppa et al., 2014; Van Zyl & Hanekom, 2013). Assessment tools that were out of print, such as the Right Hemisphere Language Bat-tery (Bryan, 1989), which includes a subtest to assess the production of emphatic stress, are not described in this review.
Evaluation CriteriaWe appraised each assessment tool against a range of criteria pertinent to whether a tool might be suitable for clinical use. The clinical utility of each tool was gauged through examining features such as intended purpose, target population, domains of prosody as-sessed, validity and reliability data, nature of the normative sample, time and ease of administration and scoring, availability in different formats, and administration method.
RESulTS And diSCuSSiOn
We identified nine assessment tools: PROP, PVSP, PEPS–C, Perception of Prosody Assessment Tool (PPAT; Klieve, 1998), Minnesota Tests of Affective
Processing (MNTAP; Lai, Hughes, & Shapiro, 1991), DANVA 2, Aprosodia Battery (Ross, Thompson, & Yenkoshy, 1997), Florida Affect Battery (FAB; Bowers, Blonder, & Heilman, 1999), and Advanced Clinical Solutions (ACS; Pearson, 2009). We are not aware of any additional batteries that assess prosody.
We divided the assessment tools into two sections based on the number of aspects of prosody that they assess. Table 2 shows tools with subtests that assess two or more aspects of prosody; Table 3 shows tools that involve only affective prosody. Tables 2 and 3 also summarize each tool’s target population, subtests involved, domains of prosody assessed, normative sample characteristics, and reliability and validity information available either in the literature or from the test developer. The tools differ in terms of target population, normative data, psychometric properties, and the domains of prosody assessed. The feasibility of each assessment tool is discussed based on factors such as time taken to administer, test format, appro-priateness of test items, and ease of scoring.
Intended Purpose and Target PopulationTables 2 and 3 indicate the different purposes for which the tools were developed. These include a focus on assessing (a) expressive prosodic skills, (b) perception of affective prosody in adults with neuro-logic and psychiatric disorders, (c) social and cog-nitive functioning in adults, and (d) prosodic skills in children with ASD and hearing loss. There are differences in the conceptual frameworks on which these tools are based: psycholinguistic (PEPS–C, PPAT), neurolinguistic (Aprosodia Battery), and social and cognitive functioning (DANVA 2, MNTAP, FAB, ACS), reflecting the many identified roles of prosody in social communication.
The PEPS–C has been used in a number of research studies investigating prosodic skills in typi-cally developing children and children with com-munication disorders (Catterall, Howard, Stojanovik, Szczerbinski, & Wells, 2006; Foley et al., 2011; Martínez-Castilla & Peppé, 2008; Peppé, & Mc-Cann, 2003; Peppé, McCann, Gibbon, O’Hare, &
Table 1. Search terms used to identify existing clinical and re-search tools for assessing prosodic skills in children and adults.
Concept Prosody Assess Impairment
Search words prosody assessments impairment intonation measures delay suprasegmental tests disorder evaluation difficulty tools
142 Contemporary Issues In CommunICatIon sCIenCe and dIsorders • Volume 42 • 138–154 • Spring 2015
Tabl
e 2
(p.
1 of
2).
Feat
ures
of
the
asse
ssm
ent
tool
s th
at e
valu
ate
two
or m
ore
aspe
cts
of p
roso
dy.
Ag
e Pu
rpos
e an
d
Pros
ody
subt
ests
As
pect
s of
N
orm
ativ
e sa
mpl
e an
d
Relia
bilit
y/
Te
st
(in
year
s)
popu
latio
n Su
btes
ts
rece
ptiv
e/ex
pres
sive
pr
osod
y in
clus
ion
crite
ria
Valid
ity
Feas
ibili
ty
PRO
P C
hild
ren
& a
dults
To
obt
ain
info
rmat
ion
Four
pro
sodi
c R
ecep
tive:
Non
e Pi
tch,
tem
po,
N
o no
rmat
ive,
N
ot a
vaila
ble.
Ti
me:
dep
ends
(Cry
stal
,
ab
out
the
expr
essi
ve
patt
erns
E
xpre
ssiv
e:
stre
ss
relia
bilit
y &
val
idity
on e
xper
tise
in
1982
)
pros
odic
pat
tern
s
Into
natio
n
data
pro
vide
d.
tra
nscr
iptio
n
en
coun
tere
d in
a
(n
ucle
ar p
itch
A
ge r
ange
s,
Fo
rmat
:
sa
mpl
e of
clin
ical
dire
ctio
n),
guid
elin
es &
exa
mpl
es
m
anua
l sc
orin
g
da
ta.
Te
mpo
(ph
rasi
ng),
of i
mpa
ired
pros
ody
M
ade
for:
Stre
ss (
phra
sal)
&
ar
e pr
ovid
ed.
cl
inic
al u
se
st
rate
gies
for
prod
ucin
g st
ress
PVSP
3–
81
To a
sses
s sp
eake
rs’
7 su
pra-
R
ecep
tive:
Non
e Ph
rasi
ng,
rate
, 25
2 au
diot
aped
Pe
rcep
tual
Ti
me:
dep
ends
(Shr
iber
g
pr
osod
y an
d vo
ice
segm
enta
ls
Exp
ress
ive:
pi
tch,
stre
ss,
ex
empl
ars
from
3-
to
crite
rion
on e
xper
tise
in
et a
l., 1
990)
in c
onve
rsat
iona
l (3
pro
sody
, Ph
rasi
ng,
Rat
e,
loud
ness
,
19-y
ear-
old
child
ren
va
lidity
for
tra
nscr
iptio
n
sp
eech
. 4
voic
e)
Stre
ss,
Loud
ness
,
lary
ngea
l w
ith n
orm
al &
dis
orde
red
pitc
h, q
ualit
y Fo
rmat
: m
anua
l
Pi
tch,
Lar
ynge
al
qual
ity a
nd
spee
ch d
evel
opm
ent
& r
eson
ance
sc
orin
g
qu
ality
and
re
sona
nce
wer
e se
lect
ed &
ra
nged
bet
wee
n M
ade
for:
Res
onan
ce
co
ded
usin
g 71
%–8
4%.
cl
inic
al u
se
Dic
taph
one
2550
In
stru
men
tal
au
dioc
asse
tte p
layb
ack
crite
rion
valid
ity
de
vice
. C
Spee
ch b
y fo
r ra
te,
stre
ss,
Mile
nkov
ic (
1991
) &
pi
tch
& q
ualit
y
V
OC
AL
(Mile
nkov
ic,
ra
nged
bet
wee
n
19
89)
wer
e us
ed f
or
80%
–100
%.
inst
rum
enta
l va
lidity
st
udy.
PEPS
–C
5–14
To
ass
ess
rece
ptiv
e 12
sub
test
s (6
R
ecep
tive:
Sho
rt Pi
tch
N
orm
ativ
e da
ta o
n Te
st–r
etes
t Ti
me:
~60
min
(Pep
pé &
and
expr
essi
ve
rece
ptiv
e pr
osod
y Ite
m
dire
ctio
n,
120
stud
ents
fro
m
relia
bilit
y fo
r 30
Fo
rmat
: M
cCan
n,
pr
osod
ic s
kills
in
& 6
exp
ress
ive
Dis
crim
inat
ion,
gr
amm
atic
al,
N
orth
Lon
don
ages
pa
rtici
pant
s w
ith
elec
troni
c20
03)
ch
ildre
n. W
idel
y
pros
ody)
Tu
rn-E
nd
affe
ctiv
e 5–
14 y
ears
, En
glis
h a
6-m
onth
int
erva
l ad
min
istra
tion;
us
ed i
n ch
ildre
n
Shor
t Ite
m
Rec
eptio
n,
(like
, di
slik
e),
as f
irst
lang
uage
,
wer
e no
t au
tom
atic
with
aut
ism
D
iscr
imin
atio
n,
Aff
ect
Rec
eptio
n,
prag
mat
ic
no i
dent
ified
spe
ech
sign
ifica
ntly
sc
orin
g
sp
ectru
m d
isor
der.
Shor
t Ite
m
Long
Ite
m
&
lan
guag
e pr
oble
ms
di
ffer
ent,
the
Mad
e fo
r:
Imita
tion,
Tur
n-
Dis
crim
inat
ion,
or e
duca
tiona
l pr
oble
ms,
ra
nge
of v
aria
tion
clin
ical
&
En
d R
ecep
tion,
C
hunk
ing
&
res
iden
ts o
f
+2.0
8 to
–1.
04.
rese
arch
use
Tu
rn-E
nd
Rec
eptio
n,
En
glan
d fo
r at
lea
st 3
In
trara
ter
Ex
pres
sion
, Aff
ect
Con
trast
ive
year
s. N
orm
ativ
e da
ta
relia
bilit
y w
as
Rec
eptio
n, A
ffec
t
Stre
ss R
ecep
tion
in
clud
ing
mea
n &
SD
s ch
ecke
d by
Ex
pres
sion
, Lo
ng
Exp
ress
ive:
Sho
rt
for
ages
5;0
(ye
ars;
re
scor
ing
18/3
0
Item
Dis
crim
inat
ion,
Ite
m I
mita
tion,
mon
ths)
, 8;
0, 1
0;0,
and
pa
rtici
pant
s (3
-
Long
Ite
m I
mita
tion,
Tu
rn-E
nd
13
;0 a
re p
rovi
ded
for
m
onth
int
erva
l);
C
hunk
ing
Rec
eptio
n,
Expr
essi
on,
each
sub
test
(W
ells
,
diff
eren
ce i
n
Chu
nkin
g Ex
pres
sion
, A
ffec
t
Pepp
é, &
Gou
land
ris,
sc
ores
was
2.6
%.
C
ontra
stiv
e St
ress
Ex
pres
sion
,
20
04).
The
perf
orm
ance
In
terr
ater
R
ecep
tion,
Lo
ng I
tem
impr
oved
bet
wee
n th
e
relia
bilit
y w
as
Con
trast
ive
Stre
ss
Imita
tion,
ages
of
5;0
and
14;3
. ch
ecke
d by
Ex
pres
sion
C
hunk
ing
obta
inin
g 2
Kalathottukaren et al.: Prosody Assessment Tools 143
Tabl
e 2
(p.
2 of
2).
Feat
ures
of
the
asse
ssm
ent
tool
s th
at e
valu
ate
two
or m
ore
aspe
cts
of p
roso
dy.
Ag
e Pu
rpos
e an
d
Pros
ody
subt
ests
As
pect
s of
N
orm
ativ
e sa
mpl
e an
d
Relia
bilit
y/
Te
st
(in
year
s)
popu
latio
n Su
btes
ts
rece
ptiv
e/ex
pres
sive
pr
osod
y in
clus
ion
crite
ria
Valid
ity
Feas
ibili
ty
Expr
essi
on,
ju
dgm
ents
on
10%
C
ontra
stiv
e St
ress
of
the
pro
duct
ion
Expr
essi
on
task
res
ults
(N
= 3
0).
Rel
iabi
lity
of 8
0%–9
8%
re
porte
d. N
o
sign
ifica
nt d
iffer
ence
in p
erfo
rman
ce a
cros
s
gend
er &
ord
er o
f
pres
enta
tion.
PPAT
7–
12
To e
valu
ate
pros
odic
Si
x su
btes
ts
Rec
eptiv
e: A
part
Pi
tch,
dur
atio
n,
6 ch
ildre
n ag
es 7
–12
CI
parti
cipa
nts
Tim
e: ~
60 m
in(K
lieve
,
pe
rcep
tion
in c
hild
ren
Apa
rt fr
om
from
lin
guis
tic
inte
nsity
,
year
s. A
ttend
ed o
ral
perc
eive
d pr
osod
ic
Form
at:
elec
troni
c19
98)
us
ing
coch
lear
lin
guis
tic c
onte
xt,
co
ntex
t: Pi
tch,
gr
amm
atic
al,
scho
ol f
or c
hild
ren
cues
of
dura
tion,
ad
min
istra
tion;
im
plan
ts
With
in l
ingu
istic
D
urat
ion,
Int
ensi
ty
affe
ctiv
e w
ith H
L, u
sed
Nuc
leus
in
tens
ity,
&
man
ual
scor
ing
co
ntex
t, To
ne &
W
ithin
lin
guis
tic
(hap
py,
sad,
22
mul
ticha
nnel
CI
pitc
h ap
art
from
M
ade
for:
af
fect
, G
ram
mat
ical
co
ntex
t: qu
estio
n an
gry,
w
ith S
PEA
K s
trate
gy
a lin
guis
tic c
onte
xt
rese
arch
use
cl
ass,
Stre
ss,
fo
rms,
sta
tem
ent
sarc
astic
), &
mor
e th
an 1
ab
ove
chan
ce l
evel
,
Com
poun
d an
d fo
rms,
com
man
d
prag
mat
ics
year
of
expe
rienc
e 70
% o
r ab
ove.
abut
ting
wor
ds.
form
s; T
one
&
w
ith t
he i
mpl
ant.
Pe
rfor
man
ce o
n
af
fect
, G
ram
mat
ical
Parti
cipa
nts
varie
d in
pe
rcei
ving
the
clas
s, S
tress
,
ag
e of
ons
et o
f H
L,
pros
odic
cue
s m
eant
Com
poun
d &
etio
logy
of
deaf
ness
, w
ithin
a l
ingu
istic
abut
ting
wor
ds.
le
ngth
of
prof
ound
co
ntex
t w
as a
t or
Exp
ress
ive:
Non
e
deaf
ness
pre
im
plan
t &
ju
st b
elow
cha
nce
expe
rienc
e w
ith t
he
leve
l, be
twee
n
de
vice
(K
lieve
& J
eane
s,
60%
and
70%
.
20
01).
Not
e. P
RO
P =
Pros
ody
Prof
ile,
PVSP
= P
roso
dy-V
oice
Scr
eeni
ng P
rofil
e, P
EPS–
C =
Pro
filin
g El
emen
ts o
f Pr
osod
y in
Spe
ech-
Com
mun
icat
ion,
PPA
T =
Perc
eptio
n of
Pro
sody
Ass
essm
ent
Tool
.
144 Contemporary Issues In CommunICatIon sCIenCe and dIsorders • Volume 42 • 138–154 • Spring 2015
Tabl
e 3
(p.
1 of
3).
Feat
ures
of
the
asse
ssm
ent
tool
s th
at e
valu
ate
affe
ctiv
e pr
osod
y on
ly.
Ag
e Pu
rpos
e an
d
Pros
ody
subt
ests
As
pect
s of
N
orm
ativ
e sa
mpl
e an
d
Relia
bilit
y/
Te
st
(in
year
s)
popu
latio
n Su
btes
ts
rece
ptiv
e/ex
pres
sive
pr
osod
y in
clus
ion
crite
ria
Valid
ity
Feas
ibili
ty
MN
TAP
6–11
To
ass
ess
face
16
sub
test
s R
ecep
tive:
Pro
sody
/ A
ffec
tive
–
67 c
hild
ren
with
AD
HD
M
NTA
P sc
ores
Ti
me:
~2–
3 ho
urs
(Lai
et
perc
eptio
n an
d (4
aud
itory
, co
nten
t pr
efer
ence
,
happ
y, m
ad,
and
38 c
ontro
ls
for
both
gro
ups
Form
at:
al
., 19
91)
re
cogn
ition
of
11 v
isua
l) Le
xica
l sa
d, s
care
d,
ages
6–1
1. I
nclu
sion
w
ere
com
pare
d el
ectro
nic
affe
ctiv
e st
imul
i as
Tr
aini
ng t
asks
,
com
preh
ensi
on,
ne
utra
l cr
iteria
for
AD
HD
gro
up
by s
ex &
ad
min
istra
tion;
co
nvey
ed t
hrou
gh
Inve
rted
face
s,
Pros
ody/
cont
ent
in
clud
ed 1
) a
teac
her
corr
elat
ed w
ith
man
ual
scor
ing
faci
al e
xpre
ssio
n,
Iden
tity
mat
ch
cong
ruen
ce,
Cro
ss
ra
ting
on t
he r
evis
ed
age.
No
sex
Mad
e fo
r:
la
ngua
ge,
and
pros
ody.
(1
), Id
entit
y m
atch
m
odal
mat
chin
g
Con
ners
tea
cher
rat
ing
diff
eren
ces
wer
e re
sear
ch u
se
(2),
Face
s te
achi
ng,
Exp
ress
ive:
Non
e
scal
e of
1.7
or
grea
ter
foun
d. C
orre
latio
ns
Aff
ect
mat
ch,
on
the
hyp
erac
tivity
w
ith a
ge w
ere
A
ffec
t na
min
g,
inde
x an
d 2)
dia
gnos
is
high
est
with
A
ffec
t ch
oice
,
of A
DH
D b
ased
on
Inve
rted
face
s,
G
estu
re r
ecog
nitio
n,
mee
ting
8 of
14
Face
and
Obj
ect
Lo
caliz
atio
n m
emor
y,
crite
ria s
et f
orth
in
the
reco
gniti
on m
emor
y,
Face
& o
bjec
t
DSM
III
–R.
No
& L
ocal
izat
ion
re
cogn
ition
mem
ory,
in
form
atio
n on
SES
or
mem
ory
task
s.
Se
quen
tial
face
pai
rs
ethn
icity
(Sh
apiro
,
AD
HD
gro
up
mem
ory,
and
fou
r
Hug
hes,
Aug
ust,
&
diff
ered
fro
m
au
dito
ry r
ecep
tive
B
loom
quis
t, 19
93).
cont
rol
grou
p in
su
btes
ts
ta
sks
of p
roso
dy/
co
nten
t co
ngru
ence
& c
ross
-mod
al
m
atch
ing.
DA
NVA
2
3–99
To
exa
min
e th
e 5
subt
ests
R
ecep
tive:
Adu
lt A
ffec
tive
–
Rel
iabi
lity:
Int
erna
l In
tern
al
Tim
e: ~
60 m
in
(Now
icki
&
pe
rcep
tion
of
(2 f
aces
, pa
rala
ngua
ge 2
,
happ
y, s
ad,
co
nsis
tenc
y co
nsis
tenc
y:
Form
at:
D
uke,
199
4)
fa
cial
exp
ress
ion,
2
para
lang
uage
C
hild
par
alan
guag
e an
gry,
fea
rful
D
AN
VA 2
AF-
D
AN
VA 2
AF–
el
ectro
nic
para
lang
uage
&
1 p
ostu
re)
2
158
colle
ge s
tude
nts;
α
= 0.
90 D
AN
VA
adm
inis
tratio
n;
(em
otio
nal
aspe
ct
Adu
lt fa
cial
(A
F)
Exp
ress
ive:
Non
e
DA
NVA
2 C
F-
2 C
F– α
=0.6
9–0.
81 a
utom
atic
of
pro
sody
),
expr
essi
ons
2,
acro
ss 1
0 st
udie
s w
ith
DA
NVA
2 A
P–
scor
ing
and
unde
rsta
ndin
g C
hild
fac
ial
(CF)
ch
ildre
n ag
ed 4
-16
α =
0.75
M
ade
for:
of b
ody
post
ures
ex
pres
sion
s 2,
ye
ars;
DA
NVA
2 A
P–
DA
NVA
2 C
P–
clin
ical
&
in c
hild
ren
and
Adu
lt pa
rala
ngua
ge
Mag
e 33
.5 y
ears
,
α =
0.74
re
sear
ch u
se
ad
ults
. (A
P) 2
, C
hild
N
= 2
0; D
AN
VA 2
(8
yea
r ol
d)
para
lang
uage
(C
P)
CP-
8-ye
ar-o
ld (
N =
32)
&
α =
0.7
6
2, A
dult
post
ures
&
10-
year
-old
(N
=31
); (1
0-ye
ar-o
ld).
2
DA
NVA
2 a
dult
DA
NVA
2 a
dult
post
ures
- co
llege
po
stur
es-
stud
ents
(N
= 5
4)
α =
0.75
.
Et
hnic
ity c
ompa
rabl
e to
co
mm
unity
rat
es.
Gro
ups
mat
ched
for
SES
& I
Q.
Mea
n &
SD
s of
err
ors
on
adul
t &
chi
ld f
acia
l
ex
pres
sion
s &
par
alan
guag
e
su
btes
ts a
re p
rovi
ded
for
ages
3–9
9. D
ata
for
child
po
stur
es s
ubte
st-5
–14
year
s;
adul
t po
stur
e su
btes
t-
15
–50
year
s.
Kalathottukaren et al.: Prosody Assessment Tools 145
Tabl
e 3
(p.
2 of
3).
Feat
ures
of
the
asse
ssm
ent
tool
s th
at e
valu
ate
affe
ctiv
e pr
osod
y on
ly.
Ag
e Pu
rpos
e an
d
Pros
ody
subt
ests
As
pect
s of
N
orm
ativ
e sa
mpl
e an
d
Relia
bilit
y/
Te
st
(in
year
s)
popu
latio
n Su
btes
ts
rece
ptiv
e/ex
pres
sive
pr
osod
y in
clus
ion
crite
ria
Valid
ity
Feas
ibili
ty
post
ures
sub
test
-5–1
4 ye
ars;
ad
ult
post
ure
subt
est-
15–5
0 ye
ars.
Apr
osod
ia
>17
To
exa
min
e Fo
ur s
ubte
sts
Rec
eptiv
e:
Aff
ectiv
e–
22 b
rain
-dam
aged
R
esul
ts
Tim
e: ~
60 m
in
batte
ry
re
cept
ion
and
(2 r
ecep
tive
Aff
ectiv
e–pr
osod
ic
happ
y, s
ad,
su
bjec
ts a
nd 1
6 co
ntro
l co
nfirm
ed t
hat
Form
at:
(Ros
s et
al.,
expr
essi
on o
f &
2 e
xpre
ssiv
e)
com
preh
ensi
on
angr
y,
subj
ects
mea
n ag
es
the
mea
n el
ectro
nic
1997
)
affe
ctiv
e pr
osod
y A
ffec
tive–
pros
odic
(w
ord,
mon
osyl
labi
c su
rpris
ed,
49
.4±
15.2
, M
/F–9
/7.
co
effic
ient
of
adm
inis
tratio
n;
in a
dults
with
re
petit
ion,
an
d as
ylla
bic
neut
ral,
Si
x w
eeks
pos
tstro
ke
varia
tion
man
ual
acqu
ired
Sp
onta
neou
s le
vels
), A
ffec
tive–
di
sint
eres
ted
patie
nts
with
ca
lcul
ated
is
scor
ing.
ne
urol
ogic
al
affe
ctiv
e–pr
osod
ic
pros
odic
unila
tera
l he
mis
pher
ic
an a
ppro
pria
te
Mad
e fo
r:
di
sord
ers.
pr
oduc
tion,
di
scrim
inat
ion
in
farc
tions
wer
e m
easu
re o
f re
sear
ch u
se
Aff
ectiv
e–pr
osod
ic
(wor
d le
vel)
in
clud
ed.
Con
trols
had
af
fect
ive
co
mpr
ehen
sion
,
Exp
ress
ive:
no h
isto
ry o
f pr
evio
us
perf
orm
ance
A
ffec
tive–
pros
odic
A
ffec
tive–
pros
odic
neur
olog
ical
pro
blem
s,
& t
hat
the
di
scrim
inat
ion
re
petit
ion
(wor
d,
st
rong
ly r
ight
han
ded
perf
orm
ance
of
mon
osyl
labi
c an
d
as
det
erm
ined
by
a co
ntro
l >
LHD
asyl
labi
c le
vels
),
sc
ore
of +
70 o
n th
e >>
RH
D
Sp
onta
neou
s
Ed
inbu
rgh
Inve
ntor
y
af
fect
ive–
pros
odic
(Old
field
, 19
71).
prod
uctio
n
Gro
ups
wer
e m
atch
ed
fo
r se
x &
edu
catio
n
(R
oss
et a
l., 1
997)
.
FAB
>1
7 To
ass
ess
10 s
ubte
sts
Rec
eptiv
e: N
on
Aff
ectiv
e–
164
parti
cipa
nts
ages
2
wee
ks
Tim
e: ~
60 m
in
(Bow
ers
et
pe
rcep
tion
of
(5 f
acia
l, em
otio
nal
pros
ody
happ
y, s
ad,
17
–85
year
s, r
ight
te
st–r
etes
t Fo
rmat
: al
., 19
99)
af
fect
ive
pros
ody
3 pr
osod
ic, &
di
scrim
inat
ion,
an
gry,
fea
rful
,
hand
ed,
prim
arily
re
liabi
lity
in
elec
troni
c
in
adu
lts w
ith
2 cr
oss
mod
al)
Em
otio
nal
pros
ody
neut
ral
Cau
casi
an,
livin
g in
yo
ung
adul
ts
adm
inis
tratio
n;
neur
olog
ic o
r
Faci
al i
dent
ity
disc
rimin
atio
n,
th
e So
uthe
aste
rn U
.S.,
(N
= 2
0, 1
8–30
m
anua
l sc
orin
g
ps
ychi
atric
di
scrim
inat
ion,
N
ame
the
no
psy
chop
atho
logy
at
year
s) &
mid
dle
Mad
e fo
r:
di
sord
ers.
Fa
cial
aff
ect
emot
iona
l pr
osod
y,
th
e tim
e of
tes
ting.
ag
e ad
ults
in
clin
ical
&
di
scrim
inat
ion,
C
onfli
ctin
g
Nor
ms
are
prov
ided
for
th
eir
early
50s
re
sear
ch u
se
Fa
cial
aff
ect
em
otio
nal
pros
ody,
youn
g ad
ults
(N
= 5
3,
(N =
12)
ran
ged
na
min
g, F
acia
l
Mat
ch e
mot
iona
l
18–3
0 ye
ars)
, m
iddl
e-
betw
een
0.89
to
af
fect
sel
ectio
n,
pros
ody
to a
n
age
adul
ts (
N =
42,
0.
97.
Fa
cial
aff
ect
em
otio
nal
face
,
31
–60
year
s),
olde
r ad
ults
m
atch
ing,
& s
ix
Mat
ch e
mot
iona
l
( N =
49,
61–
70 y
ears
) &
re
cept
ive
pros
ody
face
to
an
el
derly
adu
lts (
N=
20,
subt
ests
em
otio
nal
pros
ody
71
–84
year
s) f
or e
ach
of
E
xpre
ssiv
e: N
one
th
e 10
sub
test
s (B
ower
s
et
al.,
199
9) &
ind
ivid
uals
w
ith n
euro
logi
c di
sord
ers
(Blo
nder
, B
ower
s, &
H
eilm
an,
1991
; B
ower
s,
Blo
nder
, Sl
omin
e, &
H
eilm
an,
1996
).
146 Contemporary Issues In CommunICatIon sCIenCe and dIsorders • Volume 42 • 138–154 • Spring 2015
Tabl
e 3
(p.
3 of
3).
Feat
ures
of
the
asse
ssm
ent
tool
s th
at e
valu
ate
affe
ctiv
e pr
osod
y on
ly.
Ag
e Pu
rpos
e an
d
Pros
ody
subt
ests
As
pect
s of
N
orm
ativ
e sa
mpl
e an
d
Relia
bilit
y/
Te
st
(in
year
s)
popu
latio
n Su
btes
ts
rece
ptiv
e/ex
pres
sive
pr
osod
y in
clus
ion
crite
ria
Valid
ity
Feas
ibili
ty
AC
S 16
–70
To a
sses
s so
cial
4
subt
ests
R
ecep
tive:
A
ffec
tive–
80
0 pa
rtici
pant
s ag
ed
Inte
rnal
Ti
me:
~30
-45
(Pea
rson
,
fu
nctio
ning
Fa
cial
aff
ect
Pros
ody–
face
ha
ppy,
sad
,
16–7
0 ye
ars,
no
cons
iste
ncy:
m
in20
09)
de
ficits
in
adul
ts.
re
cogn
ition
,
mat
chin
g,
angr
y,
hist
ory
of
soci
al p
erce
ptio
n Fo
rmat
:
Aff
ect
nam
ing,
Pr
osod
y–pa
ir su
rpris
ed,
neur
olog
ical
,
tota
l (α
= 0
.70–
el
ectro
nic
Pr
osod
y–fa
ce
mat
chin
g.
fear
ful,
ps
ychi
atric
,
0.84
), pr
osod
y ad
min
istra
tion;
mat
chin
g,
Exp
ress
ive:
di
sgus
ted,
de
velo
pmen
tal,
or
(α =
0.6
4-0.
79),
man
ual
scor
ing
Pr
osod
y–
Non
e ne
utra
l,
med
ical
con
ditio
n an
d pa
irs (
α =
Mad
e fo
r:
pair
mat
chin
g
sarc
astic
af
fect
ing
cogn
itive
0.
78-0
.85)
. cl
inic
al &
fu
nctio
ning
.
re
sear
ch u
se
D
emog
raph
ics
mat
ched
to
U.S
. 20
05 c
ensu
s
da
ta f
or e
thni
city
&
educ
atio
n le
vel.
Not
e. M
NTA
P =
Min
neso
ta T
ests
of
Aff
ectiv
e Pr
oces
sing
, D
AN
VA 2
= D
iagn
ostic
Ana
lysi
s of
Non
verb
al A
ccur
acy
2, F
AB
= F
lorid
a A
ffec
t B
atte
ry, A
CS
= A
d-va
nced
Clin
ical
Sol
utio
ns.
Kalathottukaren et al.: Prosody Assessment Tools 147
Rutherford, 2007; Stojanovik, 2010). The original PEPS (Profiling Elements of Prosodic Systems) test described in Peppé’s (1998) dissertation was designed for clinical use with adults; however, the present version of PEPS–C is specifically designed for use with children. Data on typical adults using PEPS are reported in Peppé, Maxim, and Wells (2000), and some clinical results for adults are reported in Peppé, Bryan, Maxim, and Wells (1997). Martinez-Castilla, Sotillo, and Campos (2011) used the Spanish ver-sion of the PEPS–C (Peppé et al., 2010) to assess the prosodic abilities of Spanish-speaking adolescents and adults with Williams syndrome. The PPAT and MNTAP have been used to assess prosodic impair-ments in children with hearing loss and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (Klieve & Jeanes, 2001; Shapiro, Hughes, August, & Bloomquist, 1993). The Aprosodia Battery, FAB, and ACS have been used mainly to assess affective prosodic difficulties in adults with conditions such as brain injury and neurologic and psychiatric disorders. Nowicki (2006) reported that the DANVA 2, which was developed for use with children and adults, has been widely used for research purposes in various clinical groups, in-cluding hearing loss, ASD, traumatic brain injury, and learning disability.
Crystal (2009) reported that there is inadequate diagnosis in terms of identifying prosodic difficul-ties in children (mastering prosodic contrasts) and adults (managing the organizational role of prosody in speech production) and in determining the pro-sodic difficulties caused by access to limited auditory information in children and adults (e.g., due to hear-ing loss). Our review indicates that tools such as the PEPS–C, DANVA 2, PROP, and PVSP are applicable for wide age ranges (see Table 2) and diverse clinical populations. There is, in our opinion, sufficient in-formation to indicate the intended purpose and target population for these tools but a dearth of published studies exploring their clinical utility. Perhaps the best way forward is to encourage researchers to use these tools to generate evidence for clinical use.
Domains of Prosody AssessedTurk (2009) reported that an ideal prosody assess-ment tool should involve the assessment of function, phonological representation, surface-level implementa-tion, and perception of prosody (i.e., a comprehensive assessment should be able to evaluate both recep-tive and expressive skills across different aspects of prosody). An important variation among the assess-ment tools reviewed here is the attributes of prosody that they evaluate. This review reveals PEPS–C as a comprehensive tool that is useful to assess the
perception and production of different aspects of prosody. The receptive component of the PEPS–C includes subtests to assess sentence type (question vs. statement; Turn-End Reception), speaker’s attitude (liking or disliking of food items; Affect Reception), phrase boundaries (the distinction between simple and compound nouns and groupings of adjectives; Chunk-ing Reception), placement of contrastive stress/accent (Contrastive Stress Reception), and auditory discrimi-nation for long (Long item Discrimination) and short (Short item Discrimination) tones. The expressive component includes six subtests analogous to the re-ceptive subtests. The PPAT assesses the perception of phonetic features of prosody such as pitch, duration, and intensity (Apart from Linguistic Context) and grammatical (Grammatical Class and Compound and Abutting Words), emotional (Tone and Affect), and pragmatic (Stress) aspects of prosody. Thus, the PPAT is useful for the comprehensive assessment of recep-tive prosodic skills in children. However, the PPAT does not assess expressive prosody. Only the MNTAP, FAB, ACS, and DANVA 2 assess the perception of vocal emotions conveyed using prosodic cues. The Aprosodia Battery includes receptive and expres-sive subtests but assesses only affective prosody. The PROP and PVSP include only expressive prosody subtests to evaluate features such as pitch, phrasing, stress, and loudness.
The Aprosodia Battery and the FAB focus on evaluating affective prosodic deficits in neurologic or psychiatric patients. However, difficulties in affec-tive and other aspects of prosody are observed in other conditions such as hearing loss (Hopyan-Mi-sakyan, Gordon, Dennis, & Papsin, 2009; Most & Peled, 2007). Individuals with sensorineural hearing loss have difficulties perceiving subtle changes in pitch, loudness, and duration (Moore, 1987; Moore & Carlyon, 2005), which are major acoustic cues for the perception of prosody in English. Inaccurate percep-tion of these acoustic cues by individuals with hear-ing loss are manifested as difficulties in perceiving different aspects of prosody such as differentiating question from statement, word stress, distinguishing word/phrase boundaries, and vocal emotion recogni-tion (Hopyan-Misakyan et al., 2009; Meister et al., 2009; Most & Peled, 2007). The PPAT uses a phonet-ic and phonological perspective to describe receptive prosodic skills in children using cochlear implants. This is appropriate for individuals with hearing loss because it considers both acoustic factors and lin-guistic functions of prosody. Unfortunately, prospec-tive trials to evaluate the clinical utility of this tool are missing. Thus, there is a lack of comprehensive, valid, and reliable assessment tools to assess different domains of prosody in individuals with hearing loss.
148 Contemporary Issues In CommunICatIon sCIenCe and dIsorders • Volume 42 • 138–154 • Spring 2015
Norms, Validity, and Reliability Data
Normative data. None of the tools described in this review is standardized. However, norms are provided by test developers for the PEPS–C, DANVA 2, ACS, FAB, and PVSP. Norms for the PPAT, Aprosodia Battery, and MNTAP were obtained from studies that used these measures to compare the performance of disordered populations and control groups (see Tables 2 and 3). Normative data for these tests were obtained for sample sizes ranging from 16 to 800. Diehl and Paul (2009) reported that compared to the PROP, PVSP, and PEPS–C, language assessment mea-sures such as the CELF–IV and PPVT were normed on larger normative samples with stratified norms based on gender, race, geographic location, and other factors (Dunn & Dunn, 2007; Strauss, Sherman, & Spreen, 2006). Stratified normative data are not available for the prosody assessment tools identi-fied by this review. Clinicians need to be cautious in implementing the normative scores provided by the test developers to their target clinical population. For example, the PEPS–C was normed on a sample of 120 British English-speaking children ages 5–14 years, and the DANVA 2 Child Paralanguage subtest was normed on North Americans ages 8–10 years. These norms may not be appropriate for use with children who belong to different ethnic groups as there are linguistic and cultural prosody differences even among speakers of English (Coggshall, 2008).
Validity. The PVSP test developers reported good instrumental and perceptual criterion validity (Shrib-erg et al., 1992). Instrumental procedures were used to estimate the criterion validity of more than 300 audiotaped exemplars that were selected to teach the coding procedures. Where the criterion validity of these perceptual coding decisions could not be determined by instrumental means, comparisons with the perceptual decisions of a panel of expert listeners were used. Very few studies have used the MNTAP, FAB, DANVA 2, PEPS–C, ACS, Aprosodia Battery, and PPAT tools to discriminate between typical and atypical populations (discriminant validity; Bowers et al., 1999; Klieve & Jeanes, 2001; Ross et al., 1997; Shapiro et al., 1993), which suggests a need for fur-ther validation.
One aspect of validity, face validity, can be ad-dressed by determining the relevance of test items to real-life communication. For example, the Affect and Turn-End Reception subtests of the PEPS–C use sin-gle-word test items (names of food items) rather than a sentence context. A positive feature of the ACS, DANVA 2, and FAB is that they use sentence-level stimuli, which are more naturalistic than word-level stimuli. While assessing prosodic skills, it would be
appropriate to balance the advantages of psychometric robustness (using normed tests) against the advan-tages of ecological validity (as in careful analysis and profiling of naturalistic conversational data).
Reliability. Data on the reliability of the nine assessment tools reviewed in this study are shown in Tables 2 and 3. Reliability has generally been assessed using internal consistency measures or measures that are based on the correlations between different items on the same test. For the DANVA 2 and ACS, internal consistency was demonstrated by computing Cronbach’s alpha. Further empirical confir-mation of the tool beyond its initial construction by the original developers was undertaken for DANVA 2 (Nowicki, 2006). Internal consistency was measured using the coefficient of variation for the Aprosodia Battery. Test–retest reliability data are provided for the FAB and PEPS–C. Good intrarater reliability (i.e., degree of agreement among raters) and interrater reli-ability (i.e., consistency of a measure when admin-istered by different examiners) were reported for the expressive subtests of the PEPS–C by Wells, Peppé, and Goulandris (2004). This tool has been used by an increasing number of researchers (Foley et al., 2011; Martínez-Castilla & Peppé, 2008; Stojanovik, 2010).
There is considerable difficulty in directly com-paring the different tools described in this review. For example, the sensitivity and specificity of each test varies according to the population studied and the cut-off scores that are considered abnormal (see Tables 2 and 3). Overall, this review supports the recommendation by Diehl and Paul (2009) that there is a need for a prosody assessment tool that (a) is standardized relative to a large representative norma-tive sample and (b) provides empirical data on reli-ability, validity, and other psychometric properties.
FeasibilityAs noted by Crystal (2009), prosody is often ne-glected in terms of assessment, and “it is difficult to think of another medical area where a set of poten-tially relevant symptoms would be treated with such unconcern” (p. 257). Green and Tobin (2009) reported that a phonetic (surface-level features) and phono-logical (functions) analysis of prosody is useful in both typical and atypical speech. Given the clinical relevance of prosody, clinicians should take the time to investigate prosodic skills routinely in their client groups despite time constraints. However, practical considerations are important in a clinical setting, af-fecting both clients and the professionals involved in the assessment process, especially as time is neces-sarily limited. Clinicians working in the field might need to consider having access to equipment such as
Kalathottukaren et al.: Prosody Assessment Tools 149
a laptop, loudspeaker, sound-level meter, and digital voice recorder that would be required to administer some of the tools (e.g., PROP, PVSP, PEPS–C, DAN-VA 2). Automatic and computerized tests such as the PEPS–C and DANVA 2 are simple, the user manuals provide clear instructions, and a minimum amount of training is required for clinicians. In contrast, the MNTAP, PROP, and PVSP require manual scoring and prosody transcription. Other factors relevant to the clinical utility of the assessment tools include the time taken to administer the test, ease of scoring (manual or computerized), appropriateness of the test stimuli for use with children (color photographs or black and white photographs), test format (comput-erized or paper pencil test), and age range. A clini-cian should consider these factors before selecting a prosody assessment tool.
Administration time. The time taken to admin-ister each test varies depending on the number of subtests involved and the population being assessed (typical or disordered population). The PEPS–C is a comprehensive test that takes approximately 45–60 min to administer both the receptive and expres-sive subtests. Wells and Local (2009) described the PEPS–C as not time consuming, whereas Diehl and Paul (2009) considered it to be very long for a clini-cal measure. Peppé (2009) reported that the PEPS–C is short compared with the process of conversa-tion analysis, and long considering that it tests only prosody. The DANVA 2, MNTAP, FAB, and ACS take relatively less time (approximately 20–30 min) compared to the PEPS–C but only assess the percep-tion of affective prosody. The PPAT and Aprosodia Battery take approximately 1 hr to administer. Longer test duration would not be appropriate for young chil-dren and some clinical populations such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder or ASD. Tests that are in paper–pencil format and require manual scoring (MNTAP, FAB, PPAT) would take longer for the cli-nician than automatic and computerized tests (PEPS–C receptive subtests, DANVA 2). The time taken to transcribe prosodic elements (PROP, PVSP, expressive subtests of Aprosodia battery, and PEPS–C) would depend on the expertise of the clinician.
Appropriateness. The appropriateness of the test stimuli should be considered, particularly when assessing children and atypical populations. Color photographs as in the PEPS–C and DANVA 2 would appear more realistic and have higher ecological validity (Diehl & Paul, 2009) than black and white photographs (MNTAP). The color of test stimuli can have a positive effect on performance levels in chil-dren (Jeanes et al., 1997). The number of response items can affect the chance performance level and the cognitive demands of the task. The PEPS–C receptive
subtests use a simple two-alternative forced-choice format (50% chance performance level). The ACS, DANVA 2, and FAB tools have a minimum of four response options (25% or lower chance performance level), and hence may not be feasible for very young children and some clinical populations.
The version of English that is used to record the test stimuli can differ from that of the target popula-tion; hence, locally developed norms may be required for prosody assessment tools using audio-recorded material. The DANVA 2 test stimuli were recorded by native English speakers from the United States, so its suitability for assessing prosodic skills in speakers of other versions of English such as Australian or New Zealand English needs further evaluation. A positive feature of the PEPS–C tool is that the recordings are available in four different versions of English, includ-ing British, Australian, North American, and Scottish English. Clinicians need to consider the cross-dia-lect prosodic variations while assessing speakers of Afro-Caribbean, Singaporean, or Indian versions of English.
Sensitive to development. Diehl and Paul (2009) reported that there is a need for a prosody assessment tool that is developmentally sensitive and can be used with different age groups. Of the tools reviewed here, only the DANVA 2 has different forms for different ages. Tools without different age versions can have ceiling effects for older children and adults and floor effects for younger children (e.g., Wells & Peppé, 2003). Also, different subtests may not be equally difficult for the age group tested, making it difficult for the clinician to determine relative strengths and weaknesses across areas for the purpose of interven-tion unless good normative data are available (Diehl & Paul, 2009). For example, the PVSP can be used for a wide age range but does not indicate what percentage of correct prosody would be appropriate for various age groups. Few studies have reported age-related developmental changes on prosodic skills in children using the PEPS–C (Foley et al., 2011; Gibbon & Smyth, 2013; Wells et al., 2004). A sum-mary of the results and discussion section is provided in Table 4.
Conclusion SLPs frequently encounter prosodic impairments in persons with various communication disorders; hence, knowledge regarding assessment options for persons with prosodic impairments is important. The aims of this review were to identify the tools that are avail-able to assess prosodic skills in children and adults and to evaluate the clinical utility of each. In recent years, methodological paradigms such as acoustic
150 Contemporary Issues In CommunICatIon sCIenCe and dIsorders • Volume 42 • 138–154 • Spring 2015
analysis of speech productions, direct measurement of articulatory movements, judgments and reac-tion times obtained during identification and dis-crimination tasks, measurements of brain activity, and patterns of attention in babies have been used in prosody research (Prieto, 2012). However, these techniques are time consuming and are not feasible in a clinical environment. This article described the nine behavioral assessment tools that are available to aid clinicians who wish to examine prosodic skills in typical and disordered populations. The relatively small number of tools available to evaluate prosody compared to other aspects of language indicates that, although prosody is a topic that is clinically relevant, it is often overlooked in terms of formal assessment. Clearly, there is no widespread recognition of the need for prosody assessment, as evidenced by the small number of assessment tools available.
Consistent with Diehl and Paul (2009), our lit-erature review identified very few assessment tools available to evaluate prosody compared to the large number of standardized assessment tools that are available for other aspects of language like syntax, vocabulary, and phonology. Many existing prosody tools are narrow in scope or have not been robustly validated. This is an important gap that warrants future research. Most tools have been carefully constructed but lack generalizability across prosodic disorders, and five out of the nine tools identified focus on only one particular aspect of prosody. If a clinician is working with client groups with neuro-logic impairments and psychiatric disorders in which affective prosody is the main focus, then Table 3 will be useful.
When selecting a tool, clinicians should consider the target population, time required to administer the tool, ease of administration and format of the tool,
and access to equipment, as well as normative and reliability data. The various assessment tools reported in this review have explained prosody using different perspectives; hence, clinicians should have a specific idea about which aspect of prosody they want to as-sess and on which dialects of English it can be used safely.
The assessment of prosody is currently con-strained by a lack of normative data. Three of the identified tools were devoid of norms. Only four tools are available that focus on two or more as-pects of prosody. Among these, the PROP and PVSP require a high level of expertise to transcribe pro-sodic elements and are time consuming. The PPAT was originally developed for use with children using cochlear implants and therefore focuses only on as-sessing receptive prosody skills. The PPAT may work well with children with hearing loss, but limited empirical data are available. The PEPS–C may be a good choice in clinical practice as it covers a wide age range, is easy to administer and score, provides a good user guide and manual, and has been used with a number of different clinical populations. However, its application to adults needs further investigation. A lack of knowledge of developmental norms for dif-ferent domains of prosody makes it difficult to derive standardized scores for these tools in children.
Some reasons why prosody assessment is ne-glected by clinicians may be a lack of training or awareness of existing assessments, time constraints, lack of normative data for comparison with atypical populations, lack of evidence-based studies regarding the intervention of prosodic difficulties, and lack of culturally appropriate and developmentally sensitive measures. The remarkable lack of published studies on intervention for prosodic deficits might be due to the lack of appropriate assessment tools. This review
Table 4. Summary of the features of the nine prosody assessment tools reviewed.
Target population Subtests involved Psychometric data
Tools Children Adults Receptive Expressive Norms Reliability Validity
PROP + + – + – – –PVSP + + – + + – +PEPS–C + – + + + + #PPAT + – + – * – #MNTAP + – + – * – #DANVA 2 + + + – + + #Aprosodia battery – + + + * + #FAB – + + – + + #ACS – + + – + + #
Note. * indicates that norms for control groups were derived from previous studies; # indicates that few studies have used these tools to discriminate between typical and atypical populations.
Kalathottukaren et al.: Prosody Assessment Tools 151
highlights the needs for prosody assessment tools that are sensitive to developmental changes in children and that comprehensively and reliably assess relevant aspects of prosody in children and adults.
It is worth mentioning here that previous research explaining the articulatory movements and acoustic features associated with various prosodic contrasts (e.g., Grigos & Patel, 2007, 2010; Patel & Grigos, 2006; Snow, 1994, 1998) are not tied to any of the assessment tools described in this review, and a good way forward is to use these theoretical data to develop future tools. Future research should gather empirical data on the acquisition of prosody using the available tools and further explore the establish-ment of standardized diagnostic measures to evaluate prosody. Validity and reliability have been addressed to varying degrees—thoroughly in some tools and not at all in others.
The effectiveness of these tools in highlight-ing specific aspects of prosody warranting clinical intervention, and then guiding the intervention ap-proach, has received little attention. Therefore, when considering these tools for the clinical assessment of prosody, caution is required to ensure that the time investment is warranted in terms of improved clinical outcomes for clients with communication difficulties. Given the considerable evidence for the importance of prosody in everyday communication, this is an important area for future work.
ACKnOwlEdgMEnT
This study was supported by the Oticon Foundation Denmark.
REfEREnCESAmerican Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2007).
Childhood apraxia of speech. Rockville, MD: Ad Hoc Committee on Apraxia of Speech in Children. Retrieved from www.asha.org/policy/TR2007-00278/
Aziz-Zadeh, L., Sheng, T., & Gheytanchi, A. (2010). Common premotor regions for the perception and pro-duction of prosody and correlations with empathy and prosodic ability. PLoS ONE, 5(1), 1–8.
Banse, R., & Scherer, K. R. (1996). Acoustic profiles in vocal emotion expression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(3), 614–636.
Barry, M. R. (1995). The relationship between dysarthria and verbal dyspraxia in children: A comparative study us-ing profiling and instrumental analyses. Clinical Linguis-tics & Phonetics, 9, 277–309.
Blonder, L. X., Bowers, D., & Heilman, K. M. (1991). The role of the right hemisphere in emotional communi-cation. Brain, 114, 1115–1127.
Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2001). PRAAT, a system for doing phonetics by computer. Glot International, 5(9–10), 341–345.
Bombien, L., Cassidy, S., Harrington, J., John, T., & Palethorpe, S. (2006). Recent developments in the EMU speech database system. In P. Warren and C. Watson (Eds.), Proceedings of the 11th Australasian International Conference on Speech Science and Technology (pp. 313-316). Auckland, New Zealand.
Bowers, D., Blonder, L. X., & Heilman, K. M. (1999). The Florida Affect Battery. Gainesville, FL: University of Florida Brain Institute.
Bowers, D., Blonder, L. X., Slomine, B., & Heilman, K. M. (1996). The Florida Affect Battery—Manual. Gaines-ville, FL: University of Florida.
Bryan, K. L. (1989). The Right Hemisphere Language Bat-tery. Leicester, UK: Far Communications.
Catterall, C., Howard, S., Stojanovik, V., Szczerbinski, M., & Wells, B. (2006). Investigating prosodic ability in Williams syndrome. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 20(7–8), 531–538.
Chin, S. B., Bergeson, T. R., & Phan, J. (2012). Speech intelligibility and prosody production in children with cochlear implants. Journal of Communication Disorders, 45(5), 355–366.
Coggshall, E. L. (2008). The prosodic rhythm of two vari-eties of native American English. Retrieved from http://repository.upenn.edu/pwpl/vol14/iss2/2
Crystal, D. (1982). Profiling linguistic disability. London, UK: Edward Arnold.
Crystal, D. (2009). Persevering with prosody. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 11(4), 257.
Danly, M., & Shapiro, B. (1982). Speech prosody in Broca’s aphasia. Brain and Language, 16, 171–190.
Darley, F. L., Aronson, A. E., & Brown, J. R. (1969). Differential diagnostic patterns of dysarthria. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 12, 246–269.
Darley, F. L., Aronson, A. E., & Brown, J. R. (1975). Motor speech disorders. Philadelphia, PA: W. B. Saunders.
Diehl, J. J., & Paul, R. (2009). The assessment and treat-ment of prosodic disorders and neurological theories of prosody. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 11(4), 287–292.
Diehl, J. J., & Paul, R. (2013). Acoustic and perceptual measurements of prosody production on the profiling ele-ments of prosodic systems in children by children with autism spectrum disorders. Applied Psycholinguistics, 34, 135–161.
Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, D. M. (2007). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (4th ed.). Bloomington, MN: Pearson.
Foley, M., Gibbon, F., & Peppé, S. (2011). Benchmark-ing typically developing children’s prosodic performance on the Irish–English version of the Profiling Elements of Prosody in Speech-Communication (PEPS–C). Journal of Clinical Speech and Language Studies, 18, 19–40.
152 Contemporary Issues In CommunICatIon sCIenCe and dIsorders • Volume 42 • 138–154 • Spring 2015
Gibbon, F. E., & Smyth, H. (2013). Preschool children’s performance on Profiling Elements of Prosody in Speech-Communication (PEPS–C). Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics, 27, 428–434.
Grabe, E., Nolan, F., & Farrar, K. (1998). IViE—A com-parative transcription system for intonational variation in English. In Proceedings of the 5th Conference on Spoken Language Processing (pp. 1259–1262). Sydney, Australia.
Green, H., & Tobin, Y. (2009). Prosodic analysis is diffi-cult … but worth it: A study in high fucntioning autism. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 11(4), 308–315.
Grigos, M. I., & Patel, R. (2007). Articulator movement associated with the development of prosodic control in children. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 50, 119–130.
Grigos, M. I., & Patel, R. (2010). Acquisition of articula-tory control for sentential focus in children. Journal of Phonetics, 38(4), 706–715.
Hirschberg, J. (2002). Communication and prosody: Functional aspects of prosody. Speech Communication, 36(1–2), 31–43.
Hopyan-Misakyan, T. M., Gordon, K. A., Dennis, M., & Papsin, B. C. (2009). Recognition of affective speech prosody and facial affect in deaf children with unilateral right cochlear implants. Child Neuropsychology, 15(2), 136–146.
Jeanes, R., Busby, A., Martin, J., Lewis, E., Stevenson, N., Pointon, D., & Wilkins, A. (1997). Prolonged use of coloured overlays for classroom reading. British Journal of Psychology, 88, 531–548.
Juslin, P. N., & Laukka, P. (2003). Communication of emotions in vocal expression and music performance: Different channels, same code? Psychological Bulletin, 129(5), 770–814.
Karow, C. M., Marquardt, T. P., & Marshall, R. C. (2001). Affective processing in left and right hemisphere brain-damaged subjects with and without subcortical involvement. Aphasiology, 15, 715–729.
Klieve, S. A. (1998). Perception of prosodic features by children with cochlear implants. Is it sufficient for under-standing meaning differences in language (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Melbourne, Australia.
Klieve, S., & Jeanes, R. C. (2001). Perception of prosodic features by children with cochlear implants: Is it suffi-cient for understanding meaning differences in language? Deafness and Education International, 3, 15–37.
Klopfenstein, M. (2009). Interaction between prosody and intelligiblity. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 11(4), 326–331.
Ladani, N. T., Agharasouli, Z., Ashayeri, H., Bakhtiyari, B. M., Kamali, M., & Ahmadi, S. Z. Z. (2012). Devel-opment, validity and reliability of the Speech Prosody Comprehension Test. Audiology, 21(1), 69–75.
Lai, Z., Hughes, S., & Shapiro, E. (1991). Manual for the Minnesota Tests of Affective Processing (MNTAP). Min-neapolis, MN: University of Minnesota.
Ma, J. K., Whitehill, T., & Cheung, K. S. (2010). Dys-prosody and stimulus effects in Cantonese speakers with Parkinson’s disease. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 45(6), 645–655.
Marshall, C. R., Harcourt-Brown, S., Ramus, F., & van der Lely, H. K. (2009). The link between prosody and language skills in children with specific language impair-ment (SLI) and/or dyslexia. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 44, 466–488.
Martens, H., Van Nuffelen, G., Cras, P., Pickut, B., De Letter, M., & De Bodt, M. (2011). Assessment of prosodic communicative efficiency in Parkinson’s disease as judged by professional listeners. Parkinsons Disease, 2011, 1–10.
Martínez-Castilla, P., & Peppé, S. (2008). Developing a test of prosodic ability for speakers of Iberian Spanish. Speech Communication, 50, 900–915.
Martínez-Castilla, P., Sotillo, M., & Campos, R. (2011). Prosodic abilities of Spanish-speaking adolescents and adults with Williams syndrome. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26(8), 1055–1082.
Mayo, C., Aubanel, V., & Cooke, M. (2012, September). Effect of prosodic changes on speech intelligiblity. Paper presented at the 13th annual conference of the Interna-tional Speech Communication Association, Portland, OR.
McCann, J., & Peppé, S. (2003). Prosody in autism spec-trum disorders: A critical review. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 38, 325–350.
Meister, H., Landwehr, M., Pyschny, V., Walger, M., & Von Wedel, H. (2009). The perception of prosody and speaker gender in normal-hearing listeners and cochlear implant recipients. International Journal of Audiology, 48, 38–48.
Milenkovic, P. (1991). CSpeech [Computer software]. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin–Madison.
Milenkovic, P. (1989). VOCAL: Program to edit and analyze verbal utterances. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin–Madison.
Moen, I. (2009). Deviant prosody in patients with corti-cal damage. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 11(4), 272–276.
Moore, B. C. J. (1987). Psychophysics of normal and im-paired hearing. British Medical Bulletin, 43(4), 887–908.
Moore B. C. J., & Carlyon, R. P. (2005). Perception of pitch by people with cochlear hearing loss and by cochlear implant users. In C. J. Plack, A. J. Oxenham, R. R. Fay, & A. N. Popper (Eds.), Pitch: Neural coding and perception (pp. 234–277). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
Most, T., & Peled, M. (2007). Perception of suprasegmen-tal features of speech by children with cochlear implants and children with hearing aids. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 12(3), 350–361.
Nakata, T., Trehub, S. E., & Kanda, Y. (2012). Effect of cochlear implants on children’s perception and produc-tion of speech prosody. Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 131(2), 1307–1314.
Kalathottukaren et al.: Prosody Assessment Tools 153
Nowicki S., Jr. (2006). Manual for the receptive tests of the Diagnostic Analysis of Nonverbal Accuracy 2 (DANVA2). Retrieved from http://psychology.emory.edu/ clinical/interpersonal/DANVAmanual03.doc
Nowicki, S., & Duke, M. P. (1994). Individual differences in the nonverbal communication of affect: The Diagnostic Analysis of Nonverbal Accuracy Scale. Journal of Non-verbal Behavior, 18, 9–35.
Odell, K. H., & Shriberg, L. D. (2001). Prosody-voice characteristics of children and adults with apraxia of speech. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 15, 275–307.
Oldfield, R. C. (1971). The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh Inventory. Neuropsychologia, 9, 97–113.
Patel, R., & Brayton, J. T. (2009). Identifying prosodic contrasts in utterances produced by 4, 7, and 11 year old children. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 52(3), 790–802.
Patel, R., & Grigos, M. I. (2006). Acoustic characteriza-tion of the question–statement contrast in 4, 7 and 11 year-old children. Speech Communication, 48, 1308–1318.
Paul, R., Augustyn, A., Klin, A., & Volkmar, F. R. (2005). Perception and production of prosody by speakers with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 205–220.
Pearson. (2009). Advanced clinical solutions for WAIS–IV and WMS–IV. San Antonio, TX: Author.
Peng, S.-C., Tomblin, J. B., & Turner, C. W. (2008). Pro-duction and perception of speech intonation in pediatric cochlear implant recipients and individuals with normal hearing. Ear and Hearing, 29, 336–351.
Penner, H., Miller, N., Hertrich, I., Ackermann, H., & Schumm, F. (2001). Dysprosody in Parkinson’s disease: An investigation of intonation patterns. Clinical Linguis-tics & Phonetics, 15(7), 551–566.
Peppé, S. (1998). Investigating linguistic prosodic ability in adult speakers of English (Unpublished doctoral thesis). University College London, London, UK.
Peppé, S. J. E. (2009). Why is prosody in speech-language pathology so difficult? International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 11(4), 258–271.
Peppé, S., Bryan, K., Maxim, J., & Wells, B. (1997). Pat-terns of prosodic disability in a person with a non-fluent aphasia. In W. Ziegler & K. Deger (Eds.), Clinical pho-netics and linguistics (pp. 367–378). London, UK: Whurr.
Peppé, S. J., Martinez-Castilla, P., Coene, M., Hesling, I., Moen, I., & Gibbon, F. E. (2010). Assessing prosodic skills in five European languages: Cross-linguistic differ-ences in typical and atypical populations. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 12(1), 1–7.
Peppé, S., Maxim, J., & Wells, B. (2000). Prosodic varia-tion in Southern British English. Language and Speech, 43(3), 309–334.
Peppé, S., & McCann, J. (2003). Assessing intonation and prosody in children with atypical language develop-ment: The PEPS–C test and the revised version. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 17, 345–354.
Peppé, S., McCann, J., Gibbon, F., O’Hare, A., & Ruth-erford, M. (2007). Receptive and expressive prosodic ability in children with high-functioning autism. Jour-nal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 50, 1015–1028.
Pierrehumbert, J. B. (1980). The phonetics and phonology of English intonation (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/16065#files-area
Prieto, P. (2012). Part II: Experimental methods and para-digms for prosodic analysis. In A. Cohn, C. Fougeron, & M. Huffman (Eds.), Handbook of laboratory phonology (pp. 527–547). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Roach, P. (Ed.). (2000). English phonetics and phonol-ogy—A practical course. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Romero-Trillo, J., & Newell, J. (2012). Prosody and feed-back in native and non-native speakers of English. In J. Romero-Trillo (Ed.), Prosody and feedback in native and non-native speakers of English (pp. 117–131). New York, NY: Springer.
Ross, E. D., Edmondson, J. A., Seibert, G. B., & Homan, R. W. (1988). Acoustic analysis of affective prosody dur-ing right-sided Wada test: A within-subjects verification of the right hemisphere’s role in language. Brain and Language, 33, 128–145.
Ross, E. D., Thompson, R. D., & Yenkoshy, J. (1997). Lateralisation of affective prosody in brain and callosal integration of hemispheric language functions. Brain and Language, 56, 27–54.
Semel, E., Wiig, E. H., & Secord, W. A. (2003). Clini-cal Evaluation of Language Fundamentals (4th ed.). San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.
Shapiro, E. G., Hughes, S. J., August, G. J., & Bloomquist, M. L. (1993). Processing of emotional in-formation in children with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. Developmental Neuropsychology, 9, 207–224.
Shriberg, L. D., Kwiatkowski, J., & Rasmussen, C. (1990). The Prosody-Voice Screening Profile. Tucson, AZ: Communication Skill Builders.
Shriberg, L. D., Kwaitkowski, J., Rasmussen, C., Lof, G. L., & Miller, J. F. (1992). The Prosody-Voice Screening Profile (PVSP): Psychometric data and reference infor-mation for children (Tech. Rep. No. 1). Phonology Proj-ect, Waisman Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Shriberg, L. D., Kwiatkowski, J., Rasmussen, C., Lof, G. L., & Miller, J. F. (1992). The Prosody-Voice Screening Profile (PVSP): Psychometric data and reference infor-mation for children. (Phonology Project Technical Report No. 1). Retrieved from www.waisman.wisc.edu/phonol-ogy/techreports/trep01.pdf
Shriberg, L. D., Paul, R., McSweeny, J. L., Klin, A., Cohen, D. J., & Volkmar, F. R. (2001). Speech and prosody characteristics of adolescents and adults with high-functioning autism and Asperger syndrome. Jour-nal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 44, 1097–1115.
154 Contemporary Issues In CommunICatIon sCIenCe and dIsorders • Volume 42 • 138–154 • Spring 2015
Snow, D. (1994). Phrase-final lengthening and intonation in early child speech. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 37, 831–840.
Snow, D. (1998). Prosodic markers of syntactic boundar-ies in the speech of 4-year old children with normal and disordered language and development. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 41, 1158–1170.
Stojanovik, V. (2010). Understanding and production of prosody in children with Williams syndrome: A develop-mental trajectory approach. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 23, 112–126.
Stojanovik, V., Setter, J., & Ewijk, L. V. (2007). Into-nation abilities of children with Williams syndrome: A preliminary investigation. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 50, 1606–1617.
Strauss, E., Sherman, E. M. S., & Spreen, O. (2006). A compendium of neuropsychological tests (3rd ed.). Ox-ford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Torppa, R., Faulkner, A., Huotilainen, M., Järvikivi, J., Lipsanen, J., Laasonen, M., & Vainio, M. (2014). The perception of prosody and associated auditory cues in early-implanted children: The role of auditory working memory and musical activities. International Journal of Audiology, 53(3), 182–191.
Turk, A. (2009). Is prosody the music of speech? Advo-cating a functional perspective. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 11(4), 316–320.
Van Santen, J. P. H., Prud’hommeaux, E. T., Black, L. M., & Mitchell, M. (2010). Computational prosodic markers for autism. Autism, 14, 215–236.
Van Zyl, M., & Hanekom, J. J. (2013). Perception of vowels and prosody by cochlear implant recipients in noise. Journal of Communication Disorders, 46, 449–464.
Wells, B., & Local, J. (2009). Prosody as an interactional resource: A clinical linguistic perspective. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 11(4), 321–325.
Wells, B., & Peppé, S. (2003). Intonational abilities of children with speech and language impairments. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 46, 5–20.
Wells, B., Peppé, S., & Goulandris, N. (2004). Intona-tion development from five to thirteen. Journal of Child Language, 31, 749–778.
Wildgruber, D., Ethofer, T., Grandjean, D., & Kreifelts, B. (2009). A cerebral network model of speech prosody comprehension. International Journal of Speech-Lan-guage Pathology, 11(4), 277–281.
Contact author: Rose Thomas Kalathottukaren, Building 721.320, Tāmaki Innovation Campus, Discipline of Speech Science, School of Psychology, The University of Auck-land, 261 Morrin Road, Private Bag 92019, Auckland, New Zealand. E-mail:rkal180@aucklanduni.ac.nz
Recommended