Download CSD 5XXX Introduction to Research Methods in CSD

CSD 5100
Introduction to Research
Methods in CSD
The Introduction Section
Goals of the Introduction
Introduce the problem
start strong
Develop the background
demonstrate some logical connection between
the previous literature and the present study
State the purpose and rationale of the study
statement of the hypothesis or a list of the
questions the study expects to answer
An Example…
1989 JSHD publication by S.E. Sedory, S.L.
Hamlet, and N.P. Connor
Comparisons of Perceptual and Acoustic
Characteristics of Tracheoesophageal and Excellent
Esophageal Speech
Their introduction is just 4 (!!!) paragraphs long…
Ripping Apart
Here is the first sentence of their
introduction:
“With the development of the
tracheoesophageal puncture technique
(Singer & Blom, 1980), tracheoesophageal
speech has become a widely used method
of alaryngeal voice rehabilitation.”
Finishing out the First Paragraph..
Here’s the rest of the first paragraph of the
introduction…
“TE speech is achieved when pulmonary air is
directed through a prosthesis into the upper
esophagus to vibrate the pharyngo-esophageal
segment and produce voice. This replaces the
need to insufflate the esophagus as in
conventional esophageal speech and provides
the TE speaker with an increased capacity to
support his speech with the respiratory system.”
The Second Paragraph…
Here’s the first sentence…
“As the number of TE speakers has
increased, investigators have begun to
define the acoustic characteristics of TE
speech and to compare such properties
with those of normal and esophageal
speech.”
The Next Two Sentences…
“TE speakers sustain phonation longer, produce
more syllables per breath or insufflation, maintain
faster speaking rates with less pause time and
speak with greater intensity than conventional
esophageal speakers (Baggs & Pine, 1983;
Robbins, Fisher, Blom, & Singer, 1984; Wetmore,
Krueger, & Weston, 1981). In addition, TE
speech and conventional esophageal speech have
also been differentiated by jitter ratio, mean
shimmer, and percentage of periodicity (Robbins,
1984).”
The End of the Second Paragraph..
Here’s the last sentence in the paragraph..
“These studies suggest that the
differentiating acoustic variables may
affect intelligibility and acceptability of
esophageal and TE speech and could be
considered when developing therapeutic
objectives.”
The Short Third Paragraph..
“Only a small number of investigators have attempted
to examine whether there are differences in listener
perceptions of randomly selected TE and conventional
esophageal speech. Williams and Watson (1987)
found the naïve listeners rated esophageal and TE
speakers differently on quality/extraneous noise,
visual presentation, speaking rate, pitch, loudness,
and intelligibility/overall communicative effectiveness.
Dudley (1984) found no significant difference in the
intelligibility of conventional esophageal speech and
TE speech.”
The Crucial Final Paragraph..
Follow the logic here..
“Several investigators have described TE speech as often
perceptually equal to or better than superior
conventional esophageal speech (Singer, Blom, &
Hamaker, 1981; Wood, Tucker, Rusnov, & Levine,
1981). However, to date there have been no published
reports that objectively define perceptual differences
between TE and excellent esophageal speech.
Moreover, no published studies have compared the
acoustic and perceptual characteristics of these two
speech types. Such objective information would be
valuable to SLPs and ENTs considering TEP surgery for
their laryngectomized patients.”
Statement of the Research
Problem..
“This study was undertaken to directly
assess the relationship between selected
acoustic measures and perceptual
judgments of acceptability of TE speech
and excellent esophageal speech.”
The Four Major Components to the
Introduction
General statement of the problem:
Do the researchers set forth the topic of the
article, including the major variables and the
target population?
Does the general statement of the problem
lend a perspective to the specific purpose,
method, and results to make the conclusions
meaningful?
The Four Major Components to the
Introduction
The rationale for the study:
Do the authors justify the selection of the
variables studied with the specific population?
Is the need for the research clearly
presented? Are the arguments presented
logical? Are you convinced of the value of the
study?
The Four Major Components to the
Introduction
The review of the literature:
In a research paper, the lit review isn’t a
separate part of an introduction, but is the
fabric from which the statement of the
problem and rationale are woven.
Do the references cited document the need for
the study and help put the research into
context or historical perspective?