Difference between revisions of "Speech Recognition for Education"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
*SpeechRater gave a significantly lower score than human raters for German | *SpeechRater gave a significantly lower score than human raters for German | ||
*SpeechRater scored in favor of Chinese group, with H1-rater scores higher than mean | *SpeechRater scored in favor of Chinese group, with H1-rater scores higher than mean | ||
Loukina & Buzick (2017) [[https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1002/ets2.12170 pdf]] | |||
*a model (the SpeechRater) automatically scoring open-ended spoken responses for speakers with documented or suspected speech impairments | |||
*SpeechRater was less accurate for test takers who were deferred for signs of speech impairment (ρ<sup>2</sup> = .57) than test takers who were given accommodations for documented disabilities (ρ<sup>2</sup> = .73) | |||
Revision as of 13:10, 15 February 2022
Wang et al. (2018) [pdf]
- Automated scoring model for evaluating English spoken responses
- SpeechRater gave a significantly lower score than human raters for German
- SpeechRater scored in favor of Chinese group, with H1-rater scores higher than mean
Loukina & Buzick (2017) [pdf]
- a model (the SpeechRater) automatically scoring open-ended spoken responses for speakers with documented or suspected speech impairments
- SpeechRater was less accurate for test takers who were deferred for signs of speech impairment (ρ2 = .57) than test takers who were given accommodations for documented disabilities (ρ2 = .73)