Perceptual assessment of dysarthria: Comparison of a general and a detailed assessment protocol

<p><i>Objective.</i> The present, preliminary study was designed to investigate whether the results of the use of a detailed assessment protocol <i>ad modum</i> the Mayo Clinic rating of dysarthria and that of a more general assessment protocol, corresponding to ratings of deviances of the different speech production processes, differed primarily in terms of reliability.</p> <p><i>Patients and methods.</i> Recordings of text readings of 20 patients with various degrees and types of dysarthria were assessed using both protocols by five clinicians with extensive experience in assessment of neurogenic communication disorders, and results from both assessments were compared.</p> <p><i>Results.</i> The general assessment protocol was carried out with higher intra- and inter-rater reliability compared with the detailed assessment protocol. Perceptual deviations were identified in the same domains using both protocols, although only the more detailed protocol could be used to specify particular audible symptoms. Monotony, imprecise consonants, and harsh voice were the most prominent deviations identified with the detailed protocol.</p> <p><i>Conclusion.</i> It is concluded that a general assessment protocol is sufficient to identify problem areas reliably and indicate severity of dysarthria but needs to be complemented with a short description of the most prominent audible symptoms and an assessment of intelligibility.