SPAV Results

The evaluations were made between the months of September and October 2003. In conclusion each child was assessed by two different examiners chosen at random. The period between the first and second evaluation was of two to three weeks of difference. Is worth mentioning, that also measured the application time of the SPAV of each one of the examiners. The collection and comparison of the results obtained was made through the summary report provided by the SPAV to complete the evaluation.

256 Pairs of reports were obtained. Results the results obtained through the summary report of the SPAV allowed the following analysis: comparison of the results obtained with the Test of articulation to the repetition and the first application of the SPAV. We compared those items that both test evaluated: phonemes in initial position, middle and end, vowel diphone and diphone consonant. The overall results of both test agreed 100% (normal, Dislalias and presence of PSF). Comparison between the two applications of the SPAV in relation to the amount of obtained coincidences. Comparing the first application, made by a speech, and the second application of the SPAV, carried out by other professional, finding an average of 81,02% of coincidences between the results obtained between the two applications. Before the exposed results we can conclude the following: 1.

the SPAV software presents the same results as the Test of articulation to the repetition with the advantage of automatically process the results without interference from the examiner. 2. The coincidence of results found between the first and the second application of the SPAV, performed by different examiners, was highly significant exceeding 80% of PARS. 3. The application of the SPAV is amazingly fast, independent examiners. Obviously the more become familiar the faster user with proof, is its application. Noteworthy occurred 18,98% of discrepancies in the results obtained by different examiners and that the researchers attribute this to the following: differences between the examiners: clinical experience of each one of the examiners and especially their ability to discriminate sounds and PSF of children with major problems could have influenced the difference in results.

Comments are closed.