To investigate the relationship between auditory-perceptual ratings of resonance and nasometry scores in children with cleft palate. Factors which may impact this relationship were examined including articulation, intelligibility, dysphonia, sex, and cleft-related diagnosis.
Four hundred patients <18 years of age identified with CP ± L, seen for auditory-perceptual and nasometry evaluations of hypernasality as well as assessments of articulation and voice.
Main Outcome Measure
Relationship between auditory-perceptual ratings of resonance and nasometry scores
Results
Pearson's correlations indicated that auditory-perceptual resonance ratings and nasometry scores were significantly correlated across oral-sound stimuli on the picture-cued portion of the MacKay-Kummer SNAP-R Test (r values .69 to.72) and the zoo reading passage (r = .72). Linear regression indicated that intelligibility (p ≤ .001) and dysphonia (p = .009) significantly impacted the relationship between perceptual and objective assessments of resonance on the Zoo passage. Moderation analyses indicated that the relationship between auditory-perceptual and nasometry values weakened as severity of speech intelligibility increased (P < .001) and when children presented with moderate dysphonia (p ≤ .001). No significant impact of articulation testing or sex were observed.
Conclusions
Speech intelligibility and dysphonia alter the relationship between auditory-perceptual and nasometry assessments of hypernasality in children with cleft palate. SLPs should be aware of potential sources of auditory-perceptual bias and shortcomings of the Nasometer when following patients with limited intelligibility or moderate dysphonia. Future study may identify the mechanisms by which intelligibility and dysphonia affect auditory-perceptual and nasometry evaluations.
DeatherageJBourgeoisTO’BrienMBaylisAL. Examining risk of speech-language disorders in children with cleft lip. J Craniofac Surg. 2022;33(2):395-399. doi:10.1097/SCS.0000000000008000
ChapmanKL. Phonologic processes in children with cleft palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J.1993;30(1):64-72. doi:10.1597/1545-1569_1993_030_0064_ppicwc_2.3.co_2
5.
KummerAW. Disorders of resonance and airflow secondary to cleft palate and/or velopharyngeal dysfunction. Semin Speech Lang. 2011;32(2):141-149. doi:10.1055/s-0031-1277716
6.
KummerAW. Speech and resonance disorders related to cleft palate and velopharyngeal dysfunction: A guide to evaluation and treatment. Perspect Sch Based Issues. 2014;15(2):57-74. doi:10.1044/sbi15.2.57
7.
MorrisHOzanneA. Phonetic, phonological, and language skills of children with a cleft palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J.2003;40(5):460-470. doi:10.1597/1545-1569_2003_040_0460_ppalso_2.0.co_2
8.
KuehnDPMollerKT. Speech and language issues in the cleft palate population: The state of the art. Cleft Palate Craniofac J.2000;37(4):1-35. doi:10.1597/1545-1569_2000_037_0348_saliit_2.3.co_2
9.
BressmannTSaderRZieglerW, et al.Higher prevalence of voice disorders in patients with cleft lip and palate? Results from two studies. Proc. Models and Analysis of Vocal Emissions for Biomedical Applications (MAVEBA 1999).1999:122-127. https://www.isca-speech.org/archive/maveba_1999/papers/mv99_122.pdf
10.
FujikiRBThibeaultSL.Are children with cleft palate at increased risk for laryngeal pathology?Cleft Palate Craniofac J.Published online August 1, 2022:10556656221104028. doi:10.1177/10556656221104027
11.
AlamMKZulkipliASPercivalSEHaqueS. A perceptual evaluation of speech disorders in children with repaired unilateral cleft lip and palate in Hospital UniversitiSains Malaysia. Bangladesh J Med Sci. 2018;17(3):470-478. doi:10.3329/bjms.v17i3.37003
12.
KummerAWBriggsMLeeL. The relationship between the characteristics of speech and velopharyngeal gap size. Cleft Palate Craniofac J.2003;40(6):590-596. doi:10.1597/1545-1569_2003_040_0590_trbtco_2.0.co_2
13.
LallhAKRochetAP. The effect of information on Listeners’ attitudes toward speakers with voice or resonance disorders. J Speech Lang Hear Res.2000;43(3):782-795. doi:10.1044/jslhr.4303.782
14.
BettensKBruneelLMarynY,et al.Perceptual evaluation of hypernasality, audible nasal airflow and speech understandability using ordinal and visual analogue scaling and their relation with nasalance scores. J Commun Disord.2018;76:11-20. doi:10.1016/j.jcomdis.2018.07.002
15.
LohmanderAOlssonM. Methodology for perceptual assessment of speech in patients with cleft palate: A critical review of the literature. Cleft Palate Craniofac J.2004;41(1):64-70. doi:10.1597/02-136
16.
KentR. Hearing and believing: Some limits to the auditory-perceptual assessment of speech and voice disorders. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 1996;5(3):7-23. doi:10.1044/1058-0360.0503.07
17.
KummerAW. Perceptual assessment of resonance and velopharyngeal function. Semin Speech Lang. 2011;32(2):159-167. doi:10.1055/s-0031-1277718
18.
SweeneyTSellD. Relationship between perceptual ratings of nasality and nasometry in children/adolescents with cleft palate and/or velopharyngeal dysfunction. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2008;43(3):265-282. doi:10.1080/13682820701438177
19.
BaylisAChapmanKWhitehillTL. Validity and reliability of visual analog scaling for assessment of hypernasality and audible nasal emission in children with repaired cleft palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J.2015;52(6):660-670. doi:10.1597/14-040
20.
WhitehillTLLeeASYChunJC. Direct magnitude estimation and interval scaling of hypernasality. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2002;45(1):80-88. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2002/006)
21.
CastickSKnightRSellD. Perceptual judgments of resonance, nasal airflow, understandability, and acceptability in speakers with cleft palate: Ordinal versus visual analogue scaling. Cleft Palate Craniofac J.2017;54(1):19-31. doi:10.1597/15-164
22.
NemrKSimoes-ZenariMCordeiroG, et al.GRBAS And CAPE-V scales: High reliability and consensus when applied at different times. J Voice.2012;26(6):812.e.17–812.e.22.
23.
FujikiRBThibeaultSL. The relationship between auditory-perceptual rating scales and objective voice measures in children with voice disorders. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2021;30(1):228-238. doi:10.1044/2020_AJSLP-20-00188
24.
McCormackHMHorneDJSheatherS. Clinical applications of visual analogue scales: A critical review. Psychol Med. 1988;18(4):1007-1019. doi:10.1017/s0033291700009934
25.
HassonDArnetzBB. Validation and findings comparing VAS vs. likert scales for psychosocial measurements. Int Electron J Health Educ. 2005;8:178-192. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ794094. Accessed December 5, 2022.
26.
WewersMELoweNK. A critical review of visual analogue scales in the measurement of clinical phenomena. Res Nurs Health. 1990;13(4):227-236. doi:10.1002/nur.4770130405
27.
WattersonT. The use of the nasometer and interpretation of nasalance scores. Perspect ASHA Special Interest Groups. 2020;5(1):155-163. doi:10.1044/2019_PERSP-19-00029
28.
SellDJohnAHarding-BellASweeneyTHegartyFFreemanJ. Cleft audit protocol for speech (CAPS-A): A comprehensive training package for speech analysis. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2009;44(4):529-548. doi:10.1080/13682820802196815
29.
ChapmanKLBaylisATrost-CardamoneJ, et al.The americleft speech project: A training and reliability study. Cleft Palate Craniofac J.2016;53(1):93-108. doi:10.1597/14-027
30.
JohnASellDSweeneyTHarding-BellAWilliamsA. The cleft audit protocol for speech—augmented: A validated and reliable measure for auditing cleft speech. Cleft Palate Craniofac J.2006;43(3). doi:10.1597/04-141.1
31.
StelckEHBoliekCAHaglerPHRiegerJM. Current practices for evaluation of resonance disorders in North America. Semin Speech Lang. 2011;32(1):58-68. doi:10.1055/s-0031-1271975
32.
LiuYLeeSASChenW. The correlation between perceptual ratings and nasalance scores in resonance disorders: A systematic review. J Speech Lang Hear Res.2022;65(6):2215-2234. doi:10.1044/2022_JSLHR-21-00588
33.
KummerAW. Cleft Palate and Craniofacial Conditions: A Comprehensive Guide to Clinical Management. 4th edition. Jones & Bartlett Learning; 2020.
AlfwaressFKummerAWWeinrichB. Nasalance scores for normal speakers of American English obtained by the nasometer II using the MacKay-kummer SNAP-R test. Cleft Palate Craniofac J.2022;59(6):765-773. doi:10.1177/10556656211025406
36.
KummerA.The MacKay-Kummer SNAP Test-R simplified nasometric assessment procedures revised 2005. Published online January 1, 2005. doi:10.13140/2.1.2614.6080
37.
BrunnegårdKLohmanderAvan DoornJ. Comparison between perceptual assessments of nasality and nasalance scores. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2012;47(5):556-566. doi:10.1111/j.1460-6984.2012.00165.x
38.
DalstonRMNeimanGSGonzalez-LandaG. Nasometric sensitivity and specificity: A cross-dialect and cross-culture study. Cleft Palate Craniofac J.1993;30(3):285-291. doi:10.1597/1545-1569_1993_030_0285_nsasac_2.3.co_2
39.
KeuningKHDMWienekeGHVan WijngaardenHADejonckerePH. The correlation between nasalance and a differentiated perceptual rating of speech in Dutch patients with velopharyngeal insufficiency. Cleft Palate Craniofac J.2002;39(3):277-284. doi:10.1597/1545-1569_2002_039_0277_tcbnaa_2.0.co_2
40.
PrathaneeBPumnumTSeepuahamC. Relationship of perceptual evaluation for resonance disorders to nasalance scores in children with cleft palate. J Med Assoc Thai. 2012;95(Suppl 11):S100-S105.
41.
Pegoraro-KrookMIde Castro MarinoVCSilvaLde Cássia Rillo DutkaJ. Correlation between nasalance and nasality in children with hypernasality. Rev CEFAC. 2014;16:1936-1944. doi:10.1590/1982-0216201415113
WattersonTMcFarlaneSCWrightDS. The relationship between nasalance and nasality in children with cleft palate. J Commun Disord.1993;26(1):13-28. doi:10.1016/0021-9924(93)90013-Z
44.
PooleMLWeeJSFolkerJECorbenLADelatyckiMBVogelAP. Nasality in Friedreich ataxia. Clin Linguist Phon.2015;29(1):46-58. doi:10.3109/02699206.2014.954734
45.
de BoerGde Castro MarinoVCde Cássia Rillo DutkaJPegoraro-KrookMIBressmannT. Nasalance-Based preclassification of oral–nasal balance disorders results in higher agreement of expert Listeners’ auditory-perceptual assessments: Results of a retrospective listening study. Cleft Palate Craniofac J.2020;57(4):448-457. doi:10.1177/1055665619873506
46.
LarangeiraFRde Cássia Rillo DutkaJWhitakerME, et al.Speech nasality and nasometry in cleft lip and palate. Braz j Otorhinolaryngol. 2016;82:326-333. doi:10.1016/j.bjorl.2015.05.017
47.
Prado-OliveiraRMarquesILde SouzaLde Souza-BroscoTVde Cássia Rillo DutkaJ. Assessment of speech nasality in children with robin sequence. CoDAS. 2015;27:51-57. doi:10.1590/2317-1782/20152014055
48.
NandurkarA. Nasalance measures in marathi consonant-vowel-consonant syllables with pressure consonants produced by children with and without cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J.2002;39(1):59-65. doi:10.1597/1545-1569_2002_039_0059_nmimcv_2.0.co_2
49.
ChunJCWhitehillTL. The relationship between nasalance and nasality in Cantonese children with cleft palate. Asia Pac J Speech Lang Hear. 2001;6(3):135-147. doi:10.1179/136132801805576608
50.
KarlingJLarsonOLeandersonRGalyasKDe Serpa-LeitâoA.Noram–an instrument used in the assessment of hypernasality: A clinical investigation. Cleft Palate Craniofac J.1993;30(2):135-140. doi:10.1597/1545-1569_1993_030_0135_naiuit_2.3.co_2
51.
FletcherSG. “Nasalance” vs. listener judgements of nasality. Cleft Palate J. 1976;13:31-44.
52.
NellisJLNeimanGSLehmanJA. Comparison of nasometer and listener judgments of nasality in the assessment of velopharyngeal function after pharyngeal flap surgery. Cleft Palate Craniofac J.1992;29(2):157-163. doi:10.1597/1545-1569_1992_029_0157_conalj_2.3.co_2
53.
HardinMAVan DemarkDRMorrisHLPayneMM. Correspondence between nasalance scores and listener judgments of hypernasality and hyponasality. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1992;29(4):346-351. doi:10.1597/1545-1569_1992_029_0346_cbnsal_2.3.co_2
54.
WattersonTLewisKEDeutschC. Nasalance and nasality in low pressure and high pressure speech. Cleft Palate Craniofac J.1998;35(4):293-298. doi:10.1597/1545-1569_1998_035_0293_nanilp_2.3.co_2
55.
KhwailehFAAlfwaressFSDKummerAWAlrawashdehM. Validity of test stimuli for nasalance measurement in speakers of Jordanian arabic. Logop Phoniatr Vocology. 2018;43(3):93-100. doi:10.1080/14015439.2017.1370724
56.
DalstonRMWarrenDWDalstonET. Use of nasometry as a diagnostic tool for identifying patients with velopharyngeal impairment. Cleft Palate Craniofac J.1991;28(2):184-189. doi:10.1597/1545-1569_1991_028_0184_uonaad_2.3.co_2
57.
Pinborough-ZimmermanJCanadyCYamashiroDKMoralesL. Articulation and nasality changes resulting from sustained palatal Fistula obturation. Cleft Palate Craniofac J.1998;35(1):81-87. doi:10.1597/1545-1569_1998_035_0081_aancrf_2.3.co_2
58.
LeeABrownSGibbonFE. Effect of listeners’ linguistic background on perceptual judgements of hypernasality. Int J Lang Commun Disord.2008;43(5):487-498. doi:10.1080/13682820801890400
59.
LeeAWhitehillTLCioccaV. Effect of listener training on perceptual judgement of hypernasality. Clin Linguist Phon.2009;23(5):319-334. doi:10.1080/02699200802688596
60.
NikhilaKG. A study on patterns of compensatory articulation errors with reference to age of surgery in children with repaired cleft lip and palate. GJO. 2017;7(2). doi:10.19080/GJO.2017.07.555706
61.
KummerA. Speech evaluation for patients with cleft palate. Clin Plast Surg.2014;41:241-251. doi:10.1016/j.cps.2013.12.004
62.
KummerAW. Speech therapy for errors secondary to cleft palate and velopharyngeal dysfunction. Semin Speech Lang. 2011;32(2):191-198. doi:10.1055/s-0031-1277721
63.
RobisonJGOttesonTD. Prevalence of hoarseness in the cleft palate population. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg.2011;137(1):74-77. doi:10.1001/archoto.2010.225
64.
HammingKKFinkelsteinMSidmanJD. Hoarseness in children with cleft palate. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2009;140(6):902-906. doi:10.1016/j.otohns.2009.01.036
65.
FujikiRBThibeaultSL.Pediatric voice therapy: How many sessions to discharge?Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2022;31(6):2663-22674. doi:10.1044/2022_AJSLP-22-00111
66.
TanakaSGouldWJ. Vocal efficiency and aerodynamic aspects in voice disorders. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 1985;94(1):29-33. doi:10.1177/000348948509400107
67.
WattersonTHintonJMcfarlaneS. Novel stimuli for obtaining nasalance measures from young children. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1996;33(1):67-73. doi:10.1597/1545-1569_1996_033_0067_nsfonm_2.3.co_2
68.
BrancampTULewisKEWattersonT. The relationship between nasalance scores and nasality ratings obtained with equal appearing interval and direct magnitude estimation scaling methods. Cleft Palate Craniofac J.2010;47(6):631-637. doi:10.1597/09-106
69.
KooTKLiMY. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med. 2016;15(2):155-163. doi:10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012
70.
MorrisHLSpriestersbachDCDarleyFL. An articulation test for assessing competency of velopharyngeal closure. J Speech Hear Res.1961;4(1):48-55. doi:10.1044/jshr.0401.48
71.
HenningssonGKuehnDPSellDSweeneyTTrost-CardamoneJEWhitehillTL. Universal parameters for reporting speech outcomes in individuals with cleft palate. Cleft Palate Craniofa J. 2008;45(1):1-17. doi:10.1597/06-086.1
72.
KalitaSGirishKSPushpavathiMMahadeva PrasannaSRDandapatS. Objective assessment of cleft lip and palate speech intelligibility using articulation and hypernasality measures. J Acoust Soc Am.2019;146(2):1164-1175. doi:10.1121/1.5121310
73.
SakranKAAl-RokhamiRKWuM, et al.Correlation of the Chinese velopharyngeal insufficiency-related quality of life instrument and speech in subjects with cleft palate. Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol. 2022;7(1):180-189. doi:10.1002/lio2.705
74.
HiranoM.Psycho-acoustic evaluation of voice: GRBAS scale for evaluating the hoarse voice. In: Arnold G, Winkel F, Wyke B, eds. Disorders of Human Communication, 5th ed. Clinical Examination of Voice. Springer; 1981:81-84.
75.
De BodtMWuytsFVan De HeyningPCrouxC. Test-Retest study of the GRBAS scale: Influence of experience and professional background on perceptual rating of voice quality. J Voice.1995;11(1):74-80.
76.
FujikiRBThibeaultSL. Examining relationships between GRBAS ratings and acoustic, aerodynamic and patient-reported voice measures in adults with voice disorders. J Voice.Published Online March 6, 2021. doi:10.1016/j.jvoice.2021.02.007
77.
HayesAF. Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: a regression-based approach. Guilford Press; 2013, Vol. xvii: 507.
78.
HayesAFRockwoodNJ. Regression-based statistical mediation and moderation analysis in clinical research: Observations, recommendations, and implementation. Behav Res Ther.2017;98:39-57. doi:10.1016/j.brat.2016.11.001
79.
ImatomiS. Effects of breathy voice source on ratings of hypernasality. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2005;42(6):641-648. doi:10.1597/03-146.1
80.
WhitehillTLGotzkeCLHodgeM. Speech intelligibility. In: Cleft palate speech: assessment and intervention. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2011: 293-304. doi:10.1002/9781118785065.ch16
81.
AntonioDMuntzLLProvinceHRMarshMALJ. Laryngeal/voice findings in patients with velopharyngeal dysfunction. Laryngoscope.1988;98(4):432-438. doi:10.1288/00005537-198804000-00016
82.
DastolfoCGartner-SchmidtJYuLCarnesOGillespieAI. Aerodynamic outcomes of four common voice disorders: Moving toward disorder-specific assessment. J Voice. 2016;30(3):301-307. doi:10.1016/j.jvoice.2015.03.017
83.
RosenthalALowellSColtonR. Aerodynamic and acoustic features of vocal effort. J Voice.2014;28(2):144-153.
84.
AokiTTakeyamaTSakamotoY, et al.Effects of vocal nodules on acoustic characteristics of voice in children : An acoustic analysis of voice. J Med Invest. 2021;68(3.4):276-279. doi:10.2152/jmi.68.276
85.
SchulmanR. Articulatory dynamics of loud and normal speech. J Acoust Soc Am.1989;85(1):295-312. doi:10.1121/1.397737
86.
MaEPMYuCHY. Listeners’ attitudes toward children with voice problems. J Speech Lang Hear Res.2013;56(5):1409-1415. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2013/11-0242)
87.
PerryJLKollaraLKuehnDPSuttonBPFangX. Examining age, sex, and race characteristics of velopharyngeal structures in 4- to 9-year old children using magnetic resonance imaging. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2018;55(1):21-34. doi:10.1177/1055665617718549
