Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2025
Effect of Hybrid Telepractice and In-Person Speech Therapy on Speech Outcomes in Persian-Speaking Children with Cleft Palate: A Preliminary Investigation
This study examined the effects of intensive hybrid telepractice and in-person speech therapy on speech characteristics in Persian-speaking children.
Design
Single-subject experimental design (ABA type).
Setting
Mobasher Speech Therapy Clinic, Hamadan, Iran.
Participants
Four Persian-speaking children aged 3 to 12 years with CP ± L and at least one active cleft-type characteristic (CTC).
Intervention
Thirty intensive hybrid sessions (three in-person and two telepractice sessions per week) over six weeks.
Main Outcome Measures
Percentage of active oral/nonoral CTCs, percentage of correct consonants (PCC) in sentence imitation, word imitation, and word naming, percentage of stimulable consonants, hypernasality and nasal air emission were evaluated using the cleft audit protocol for speech-augmented protocol. Visual analysis, the two-standard deviation (2SD) test, and effect size indices, percentage of nonoverlapping data (PND) and Improvement Rate Difference (IRD), were used to assess outcomes.
Results
All participants demonstrated reductions in active CTCs, hypernasality, and nasal air emission, alongside increases in PCC and stimulable consonants. These gains were maintained during the follow-up. PND and IRD indices reached 100% for all participants across all variables, except for hypernasality and nasal air emission. Hypernasality showed moderate treatment effects (PND/IRD = 40-60%), while the PND and IRD values for nasal air emission were 80%. The 2SD test confirmed statistically significant improvements (α = 0.05) in interval-level variables such as PCC and active CTCs, supporting the robustness of treatment effects.
Conclusion
Intensive hybrid telepractice and in-person therapy can improve multiple speech characteristics in Persian-speaking children with CP ± L, supporting the value of integrated, accessible treatment approaches for this population.
AlighieriCBettensKPerryJHensGRocheNVan LierdeK. Achieving the next level in cleft speech intervention: A protocol of a randomized sham-controlled trial to provide guidelines for a personalized approach in children with cleft palate. Int J Lang Commun Disord.2023;58(4):1405–1418. doi:10.1111/1460-6984.12853
2.
AlighieriBettensVanoostDemuynckVerhaegheVan Lierde . Parents’ perceptions on speech therapy delivery models in children with a cleft palate: A mixed methods study. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol.Dec 2021;151:110958. doi:10.1016/j.ijporl.2021.110958
3.
BaghbanKDerakhshandehFAdibiA, Shati M, Khanlar F, Mostajeran F. The effects of intensive speech therapy on non-oral cleft speech characteristics and quality of life in children with cleft palate. Original research articles. Iran Rehabil J. 2021;19(3):315–324. doi:10.32598/irj.19.3.24.5
4.
KummerAW. Speech therapy for errors secondary to cleft palate and velopharyngeal dysfunction. Semin Speech Lang.May 2011;32(2):191–198. doi:10.1055/s-0031-1277721
5.
JohnASellDSweeneyTHarding-BellAWilliamsA. The cleft audit protocol for speech-augmented: A validated and reliable measure for auditing cleft speech. Cleft Palate-Craniofac J. May 2006;43(3):272–288. doi:10.1597/04-141.1
6.
SweeneyTHegartyFPowellKDeasyLReganMOSellD. Randomized controlled trial comparing Parent Led Therapist Supervised Articulation Therapy (PLAT) with routine intervention for children with speech disorders associated with cleft palate. Int J Lang Commun Disord.Sep 2020;55(5):639–660. doi:10.1111/1460-6984.12542
7.
AW K. Cleft Palate & Craniofacial Anomalies: Effects on Speech and Resonance. 4 ed. 2023.
8.
DubeyAKPrasannaSRMDandapatS. Detection and assessment of hypernasality in repaired cleft palate speech using vocal tract and residual features. J Acoust Soc Am.Dec 2019;146(6):4211. doi:10.1121/1.5134433
9.
AlighieriCBettensKBruneelLD'HaeseleerEVan GaeverEVan LierdeK. Effectiveness of speech intervention in patients with a cleft palate: Comparison of motor-phonetic versus linguistic-phonological speech approaches. J Speech Lang Hear Res. Dec 14 2020;63(12):3909–3933. doi:10.1044/2020_jslhr-20-00129
10.
AndradeLKFDutkaJCRFerreiraGZPintoMDBPegoraro-KrookMI. Influence of an intensive speech therapy program on the speech of individuals with cleft lip and palate. Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol.Jan 2023;27(1):e3–e9. doi:10.1055/s-0041-1730300
11.
AlighieriCBettensKBruneelLSserembaDMusasiziDOjokIVan LierdeK. Comparison of motor-phonetic versus phonetic-phonological speech therapy approaches in patients with a cleft (lip and) palate: A study in Uganda. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol.2020;131:109849. doi:10.1016/j.ijporl.2019.109849
12.
DerakhshandehFNikmaramMHosseinabadHHMemarzadehMTaheriMOmraniMJalaieSBijankhanMSellD. Speech characteristics after articulation therapy in children with cleft palate and velopharyngeal dysfunction - A single case experimental design. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol.Jul 2016;86:104–113. doi:10.1016/j.ijporl.2016.04.025
13.
Pamplona MdelCYsunzaAPérezGVergaraS. Summer school speech therapy for children with cleft palate and language disorder. Gaceta medica de Mexico. 2009;145(6):475–479. Terapia de lenguaje en la modalidad de “curso de verano” para niños con fisura palatina y trastorno de lenguaje.
14.
FerreiraGZBressmannTde Cássia Rillo DutkaJWhitakerMEde BoerGde Castro MarinoVCPegoraro-KrookMI. Analysis of oral-nasal balance after intensive speech therapy combined with speech bulb in speakers with cleft palate and hypernasality. J Commun Disord.2020;85:105945. doi:10.1016/j.jcomdis.2019.105945
15.
SkidmoreE. Critical Review: What are the effects of intensive speech therapy intervention for speech outcomes in children with cleft lip and palate? 2012.
16.
Molini-AvejonasDRRondon-MeloSAmatoCASamelliAG. A systematic review of the use of telehealth in speech, language and hearing sciences. J Telemed Telecare.Oct 2015;21(7):367–376. doi:10.1177/1357633(15583215
17.
ShprintzenRJGolding-KushnerKJ. The international use of telepractice. Perspect Telepract. 2012;2(1):16–25. doi:doi:10.1044/tele2.1.16
18.
FarmaniEFekar GharamalekiFNazariMA. Challenges and opportunities of tele-speech therapy: Before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Public Health Res.Jan 2024;13(1):22799036231222115. doi:10.1177/22799036231222115
19.
PamplonaMDCYsunzaPA. Speech pathology telepractice for children with cleft palate in the times of COVID-19 pandemic. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol.Nov 2020;138:110318. doi:10.1016/j.ijporl.2020.110318
20.
WhiteheadEDorfmanVTremperGKramerASiglerAGosmanA. Telemedicine as a means of effective speech evaluation for patients with cleft palate. Ann Plast Surg.2012;68(4):415–417. doi:10.1097/SAP.0b013e31823b6897
21.
KotlarekKJHaensslerAEPerryJL. Exploratory study of hybrid telepractice and in-person treatment of compensatory articulation errors in cleft palate. Commun Disord Q.2022;44(1):45–51. doi:10.1177/15257401211067940
22.
QuinnEDKaiserAPLedfordJ. Hybrid telepractice delivery of enhanced milieu teaching: Effects on caregiver implementation and child communication. J Speech Lang Hear Res. Aug 9 2021;64(8):3074–3099. doi:10.1044/2021_jslhr-20-00430
23.
SchererNJD'AntonioLLMcGaheyH. Early intervention for speech impairment in children with cleft palate. Cleft Palate-Craniofac J. Jan 2008;45(1):18–31. doi:10.1597/06-085.1
ByiersBJReichleJSymonsFJ. Single-subject experimental design for evidence-based practice. Am J SpeechLang Pathol. Nov 2012;21(4):397–414. doi:10.1044/1058-0360(2012/11-0036)
26.
LedfordJRGastDL. Single Case Research Methodology: Applications in Special Education and Behavioral Sciences. Taylor & Francis; 2018.
27.
VanceMCleggJ. Use of single case study research in child speech, language and communication interventions. Child Lang Teach Ther.2012;28:255–258. doi:10.1177/0265659012457766
28.
PolingGLKunnelTJDharS. Comparing the accuracy and speed of manual and tracking methods of measuring hearing thresholds. Ear Hear.2016;37(5):e336–e340. doi:10.1097/aud.0000000000000317
29.
AmirianADerakhshandehFSalehiASoleimaniB. Evaluating intra- and inter-rater reliability for “Cleft palate speech assessment test based on universal parameters system—in Persian”. J Res Rehabil Sci. 2011;7. doi:10.22122/jrrs.v7i4.417
30.
Golding-Kushner KarenJ. Therapy Techniques for Cleft Palate Speech and Related Disorders. Singular; 2001.
31.
Van RiperCEricksonRL. Speech Correction : An Introduction to Speech Pathology and Audiology. 9th ed. Allyn and Bacon; 1996.
WilliamsALMcLeodSMcCauleyRJ. Interventions for Speech Sound Disorders in Children. Paul H. Brookes Pub.; 2010.
34.
GierutJA. Complexity in phonological treatment: Clinical factors. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch.2001;32(4):229–241. doi:10.1044/0161-1461(2001/021)
35.
KotlarekKJKruegerBI. Treatment of speech sound errors in cleft palate: A tutorial for speech-language pathology assistants. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch.2023;54(1):171–188. doi:doi:10.1044/2022_LSHSS-22-00071
36.
ŞenNSenS. Calculation of effect size in single-subject experimental studies: Examination of non-regression-based methods. J Measur Eval Educ Psychol. 2019;10:30–48. doi:10.21031/epod.419625
37.
ParkerRIVannestKJDavisJL. Effect size in single-case research: A review of nine nonoverlap techniques. Behav Modif.2011;35(4):303–322.
38.
KummerAW. Cleft Palate and Craniofacial Conditions : A Comprehensive Guide to Clinical Management. 4th ed. Jones & Bartlett Learning; 2020.
39.
AlighieriCLierdeKVCaesemaekerA-SD, DemuynckK, BruneelL, D'haeseleer E, BettensK. Is high-intensity speech intervention better? A comparison of high-intensity intervention versus low-intensity intervention in children with a cleft palate. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2021;64(9):3398–3415. doi:10.1044/2021_JSLHR-21-00189
40.
ChapmanKLHardin-JonesMSchulteJHalterKA. Vocal development of 9-month-old babies with cleft palate. J Speech Lang Hear Res. Dec 2001;44(6):1268–1283. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2001/099)
41.
SweeneyT. Nasality – assessment and intervention. Cleft Palate Speech: Assessment and Intervention. 2011:199-220.
42.
ShermanDHallP. Nasality and precision of articulation. Percept Mot Skills.1978;46(1):115–118. doi:10.2466/pms.1978.46.1.115
43.
SchererNJKaiserAPFreyJRLancasterHSLienKRobertsMY. Effects of a naturalistic intervention on the speech outcomes of young children with cleft palate. Int J Speech Lang Pathol.2020;22(5):549–558. doi:10.1080/17549507.2019.1702719
