James Fitch

Acoustic Measures of Dysphonic Severity across and within Voice Types

The purpose of the study was to explore an interaction between pathologic voice type and the acoustic prediction of dysphonic severity. One hundred and two phonatory samples, representing a wide range of laryngeal conditions, were categorized by listeners into three voice types: breathy, rough, and hoarse. A second group of trained listeners rated the severity of the samples on a 7-point scale. Twenty-five frequency- and time-domain measures were used to predict perceptual severity. Multiple regression analyses showed that the most useful measure for the prediction of severity across voice types was noise-to-harmonic ratio (NHR). The severity of individual voice types was predicted with differential results on the basis of both short- and long-term measures of perturbation.

A Survey of Computer Use by Public School Speech-Language Pathologists

A questionnaire concerning computer applications was sent to 1,000 public school speech-language pathologists across the United States. Four hundred sixty-seven questionnaires were completed. Included in this article is an analysis of the applications for which computers are being used in the public schools, the types of hardware available, factors that public school speech-language pathologists feel are important in choosing software, and the types and degree of training public school speech-language pathologists have had concerning computer applications.

Orientation to Hearing Loss for Educational Personnel

The success or failure of hearing-impaired children in a regular education program may depend on information provided to the educational personnel. Education programs should have workshops to make their personnel aware of the characteristics and needs of hearing-impaired children. The speech-language pathologist is often the person in the school who has the appropriate background for conducting such a workshop. This article outlines a workshop on hearing impairment that can be presented by a speech-language pathologist to regular educators.

Commentaries: Accent Reduction: A Corporate Enterprise

Muller et al. are to be commended on an excellent discussion of the “challenge” accent modification poses to the field of speech-language pathology. I agree with their basic proposition that the profession should treat all forms of differing communication as “equally valid.” Any time a professional labels a communication system as ”disordered,” it is indicating to society that the communication system is not ”equal” or “valid” in comparison to ”normal” communication systems. In stigmatising the individual’s communication system, the individual is stigmatised. For this reason, I believe it was a mistake for speech-language pathologists (SLPs) to ever use the word ”disorder” in referring to clients. Is the communication system of a person with alaryngeal speech, a frontal lisp, a dysfluency, a hearing loss, and so on, not ”equal” to a ”normal” communication system? I believe strongly that our profession has not been more socially conscious in educating society about persons with communication systems that are different, or according to our texts, ”disordered.” I believed so strongly about the social responsibility of our field that some time ago I developed a course at Auburn University (quite apart from anything I do in providing accent reduction training, to be outlined below) for persons in fields that come into contact with the public. I did so after 30 years of hearing stories of how people with communication ”disorders” have been treated by an unknowing public. The purpose of the course is to teach persons who have, or will have, extensive contact with the public, how to recognise a communication difference, how it feels to have that communication difference, and how to interact productively with people who have communication differences. In this course, I specifically used the word ”difference” rather than

Integrating Technology Into School Programs

Responses to a questionnaire that were previously reported (McRay & Fitch, 1996) were examined to determine the primary factors that affect computer use by public school speech-language pathologists. It was found that the primary factors could be grouped into three areas: motivation, training, and opportunity. An analysis of the questionnaire responses is presented and suggestions for planning for the integration of computers into public school settings are included.