Dataset abstract
This dataset contains the results from 40 language and speech researchers, who completed a survey. In the first part of the survey, respondents were asked to complete a demographic (e.g., age, gender, first language) and professional background questionnaire (e.g., current academic position, research interests). In addition, they were asked several open-ended questions about their familiarity with and understanding of the term ‘ecological validity’ (e.g., which words come to mind when you hear this term, how to measure the ecological validity of a study, how does ecological validity apply to your area of research). In the second part of the survey, respondents were presented with 24 short speech excerpts, representing 12 different stimulus types. They were asked to rate each speech excerpt on its degree of casualness (i.e. spontaneity) and naturalness, and how likely they are to encounter each excerpt in everyday listening situations. (2024-06-21)
Article abstract
This paper explores how researchers in the field of language and speech sciences understand and apply the concept of ecological validity. It also assesses the ecological validity of various stimulus materials, ranging from isolated word productions to sentences taken from authentic interviews. Forty researchers participated in a survey, which contained (i) a demographic and professional background questionnaire with open-ended questions about the definition, feasibility and desirability of ecological validity, and (ii) a speech rating task. In the rating task, respondents evaluated 24 speech excerpts, representing 12 types of stimulus materials, on their casualness, naturalness, and likelihood of occurrence in real-life contexts. The results showed that while most researchers acknowledge the importance of ecological validity, defining the necessary and sufficient criteria for evaluating or achieving it remains challenging. Regarding stimulus types, unscripted sentences from interviews and Map Task dialogues were rated as the most casual and natural. In contrast, carefully read sentences and digitally modified stimuli were viewed as the least casual and natural, although individual differences in rating were noticeable. Similarly, ratings for the likelihood of occurrence in everyday listening situations were highest for various types of extemporaneous speech. The survey responses not only enhance our theoretical understanding of ecological validity, but also raise awareness about the implications of methodological choices, such as the selection of tasks and stimulus materials, on the ecological validity of a study. (2024-06-21) |
