JCPSLP Vol 17 No 1 2015_lores

Table 1. Translations of the Intelligibility in Context Scale (continued)

แบบประเมิ นการฟั งเข้ าใจคำ � พู ด Ko e Tu’unga ‘o e Poto’i Faka’atamai ‘i hono Fakasikeili: Lea Faka-Tonga Tshikalo tsha u Pfesesea ha Kuambele: Tshivenda

Разговетност у контексту скале: Српски Teko ya kutlwisiso ya puo: Sesotho

Thai ( ภาษาไทย )

Serbian

Sesotho (Sesotho)

Tongan (Lea Faka-Tonga)

Slovak (Slovak)

Tshivenda (Tshivenda)

Škála hodnotiaca zrozumitel’nost’ re ˆci v kontexte: Slovak

Turkish (Türkçe)

Slovenian (slovenš ˆcina)

Lestvica razumljivosti govora v vsakdanjem življenju: slovenš ˆcina

Ba ˘glam Içi Anla ¸sılabilirlik Ölçe ˘gi: Türkçe

Sự Dễ hiểu trong phạm vi ngữ cảnh: Việt Graddfa Eglurder mewn Cyd-destun: Cymraeg

Somali (Soomaali) Spanish (Español) Swedish (Svenska)

Cabbirka Garashada Hadalka: Soomaali

Vietnamese ( Việt ) Welsh (Cymraeg)

Escala de Inteligibilidad en Contexto: Español Skattning av förståelighet i kontext: Svenska Antas ng Pag-unawa ng Iba’t Ibang Tao sa Pagsasalita: Tagalog

Xhosa (isiXhosa)

Ulwazi olu Phezulu: isiXhosa

Zulu (isiZulu)

Isikalelo sesigqi Sobuhlakani: isiZulu

Tagalog (Tagalog/Filipino)

Note: Translations in isiNdebele, Sepedi, Setswana, SiSwati, and Xitsonga are forthcoming.

Availability of the ICS The translated versions of the ICS are freely available from http://www.csu.edu.au/research/multilingual-speech/ics. Each version of the ICS is available in two formats: a monolingual format and a bilingual format with the English translation added in a smaller font. On the website and the pdf versions of the ICS the translators have been acknowledged by name and affiliation. In the footnote of each pdf version of the ICS, a suggested reference is provided that acknowledges the authors and translators. A creative commons licence has been added (http:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/) that allows users to copy and use the ICS, as long as appropriate attribution is made, the material is not used for commercial purposes, and revisions of the material are not distributed. Users are welcome to contact the authors about additional uses of the ICS. Conclusion While over 20% of Australian speech pathologists provide services in languages other than English (Verdon, McLeod, & McDonald, 2014), most Australian speech pathologists encounter children who do not speak the same languages as they speak. The ICS is a promising tool to provide first-phase screening of children’s intelligibility so as to determine whether additional assessment is required with the assistance of an interpreter or colleague who speaks the language(s) of the child. International collaboration between speech pathologists, linguists, and translators has resulted in the availability of the ICS in 60 languages and international research is underway to validate, norm, and examine the clinical applicability of the ICS across the world. References Caesar, L. G., & Kohler, P. D. (2007). The state of school- based bilingual assessment: Actual practice versus

They found that the ICS showed good internal consistency and test-retest reliability. Criterion validity was established by comparing results between the two groups of children. For the typically developing group the mean score was 4.6 ( SD = 0.5) and this was significantly different from mean score achieved by the children with speech sound disorders ( M = 4.1; SD = 0.7). The effect size was large d = 0.74. Sensitivity of 0.70 and specificity of 0.59 was established as the optimal cut-off. Tomi´c and Mildner (2014) used the ICS with 486 Croatian-speaking children aged 1;2–7;3 and compared parent- and teacher-reported intelligibility. They found that across the children, the mean score was 4.4 ( SD = 0.5, range = 2.4–5.0). Kim et al. (2014) used the ICS with 26 Korean-English speaking children in New Zealand who were aged 3;0–5;5 and reported the mean score was 4.4 ( SD = 0.5). Kogovšek and Ozbiˇc (2013) used the ICS with 104 Slovenian-speaking children aged 2 to 6 years and found that across the children the mean score was 4.6 ( SD = 0.5, range = 2.7–5.0). They found that parents and immediate family members were more likely to understand the children, and that strangers were least likely to understand the children. To date, there has been remarkable consistency across these international studies and those that have been undertaken with English-speaking children (McLeod et al., 2012b; McLeod et al., 2014). It may be the case that across the world preschool children who achieve a mean score above 4.2 may be considered to be developing typically; whereas those who score below 4 may require additional assessment. Additional studies are underway in a range of countries including: Brazil, Cambodia, Denmark, Fiji, Iceland, Iran, Israel, Jamaica, Germany, New Zealand, Slovenia, South Africa, Sweden and Vietnam. Further studies will confirm whether this hypothesis is applicable across languages.

10

JCPSLP Volume 17, Number 1 2015

Journal of Clinical Practice in Speech-Language Pathology