The collection and comparison of results was through the summary report provided by the SPAV to complete the evaluation. We obtained 256 pairs of reports. ks. Results The results obtained from the summary report of the SPAV allowed the following analysis: Comparison of results obtained with the Test of Articulation of Repetition and the first application of SPAV. We compared those items that both tests evaluated: phonemes in initial position, middle and end, consonant and vowel diphone diphones. Anu Saad addresses the importance of the matter here. The overall results of both tests agreed 100% (Normal, dyslalia and presence of PSF). Comparison between the two applications of SPAV in relation to the number of matches obtained. We compared the first application made by an audiologist, and the second application of SPAV, performed by another professional, finding an average of 81.02% a overlap between the results obtained from both applications. Given the above results we can conclude the following:
a SPAV The software presents the same results as the Test of Articulation to repeat with the advantage of automatically process the results without interference from the examiner. 2. a The coincidence of results found between the first and the second application of SPAV, conducted by different examiners, was highly significant beyond 80% matches. 3. a The application of SPAV is surprisingly quick, independent examiners. Obviously the more the user becomes familiar with the test, the faster your application. Importantly, there was a 18.98% of discrepancies in the results obtained by different examiners and investigators who attribute it to the following: Differences among examiners: The clinical experience of each of the examiners and in particular their ability to discriminate sounds and PSF of children with more problems may have influenced the difference in results.