![Sample our Health and Social Care journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5938/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Health-Social-Care.jpg"})
Abstract
The time efficiency of procedures for phonological and grammatical analysis was studied, comparing manual and computerised methods. Participants were 256 students and practising clinicians who had received university-level instruction in the analysis procedures they performed. Phonological analyses included the evaluation of variability, homonymy, word shapes, phonetic inventory, accuracy of production and correspondence between target and production forms. Grammatical analyses included MLU and descriptive statistics, number of syntactic types, LARSP, DSS, and IPSyn. Three phonological samples and three grammatical samples, varying in size and complexity/severity, were analysed. Without exception, computerised analyses were completed faster and with equal or better accuracy than manual analyses. The time needed for both computerised and manual methods was affected by the type of analysis, the type of sample, and the efficiency of individual participants. Nevertheless, the overall findings support the view that non-standardized assessment is feasible even in a busy clinical timetable, if it is done by computer.