The nature of the speech material, the assessment method, and listener characteristics associated with factors other than experience with disordered speech are just a few examples of the many variables that differ between studies, making it challenging to pinpoint a general pattern in how clinical experience may affect listeners’ assessments of acceptability. Witt and colleagues on the other hand, show a pattern in which teachers and parents of children with cleft palate are perceptive to signs of speech difficulty that untrained peers miss. As a result, it might be concluded that older listeners are more critical than younger ones. Again, distinctions in the investigated speech material’s nature and assessment techniques make it challenging to pinpoint general trends in how listeners of various ages evaluate acceptability. It is certainly clinically useful to know to what extent clinical assessments of acceptability reflect listeners’ perceptions without clinical training and/or experience, despite the fact that possible differences between different listener groups’ assessments of acceptability may not be easily explained. Witt et al. (1996) contend that the inclusion of peer-reviewed Audience Response Systems (ARS) have been used in perceptual assessment of both natural and synthetic speech . Here, panels of listeners provide their assessment by striking a button everyone using their own hand control or keyboard, while speech samples are being played continuously. The evaluation will focus on a certain feature of speech depending on the instructions provided. Intelligibility is the focus of the instruction “hit the button anytime you don’t understand,” whereas acceptability is the focus of the instruction “strike the button if you believe it sounds unusual.