The purpose of this study was to determine factors predicting communication-related quality of life in children with cleft palate with or without cleft lip (CP ± L) or congenital velopharyngeal insufficiency (VPI).
Two-hundred and seventy-one children <18 years of age, diagnosed with CP ± L or congenital VPI.
Main Outcome Measure
Velopharyngeal Insufficiency Quality of Life (VELO) scores as well as articulation, speech intelligibility, resonance, and voice outcomes were extracted from the electronic medical record in order to characterize communication-related quality of life. Total VELO score, as well as speech limitations, situational difficulty, emotional impact, perception by others and swallow subscores, were collected. Demographic factors, economic deprivation, medical history, and history of palatoplasty/pharyngoplasty were considered. Linear regression identified predictors of VELO total and subscores.
Results
Poorer speech intelligibility and increased hypernasality significantly predicted lower (worse) total VELO scores (P < .01), as well as more severe speech limitations (P < .01), situational difficulty (P < .01), emotional impact (P < .01), and perception by others (P < .01). The presence of glottal stop substitutions also predicted more severe emotional impact (P < .01). A comorbid behavioral health condition predicted significantly lower total VELO scores (P < .01), and children living in neighborhoods experiencing greater socioeconomic deprivation presented with worse swallow section scores (P < .01).
Conclusions
Hypernasality and decreased speech intelligibility primarily influenced the communication-related quality of life in children with velopharyngeal dysfunction. Additional research is warranted to determine how intervention can best mitigate VPI-related challenges in order to improve social interaction and quality of life.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlfwaressFSDKhwailehFARawashdehMAAlomariMANazzalMS. Cleft lip and palate: demographic patterns and the associated communication disorders. J Craniofac Surg. 2017;28(8):2117–2121. doi:10.1097/SCS.0000000000003984
2.
PamplonaMYsunzaAGonzálezMRamı´rezEPatiñoC. Linguistic development in cleft palate patients with and without compensatory articulation disorder. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol.2000;54(2):81–91. doi:10.1016/S0165-5876(00)00332-3
3.
ChapmanKLHardin-JonesMHalterKA. The relationship between early speech and later speech and language performance for children with cleft lip and palate. Clin Linguist Phon.2003;17(3):173–197. doi:10.1080/0269920021000047864
4.
CavalheiroMGLamônicaDACde Vasconsellos HageSRMaximinoLP. Child development skills and language in toddlers with cleft lip and palate. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2019;116:18–21. doi:10.1016/j.ijporl.2018.10.011
5.
HaSOllerKD. Longitudinal study of vocal development and language environments in infants with cleft palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2022;59(10):1286–1298. doi:10.1177/10556656211042513
6.
Hardin-JonesMChapmanKL. Cognitive and language issues associated with cleft lip and palate. Semin Speech Lang. 2011;32(2):127–140. doi:10.1055/s-0031-1277715
7.
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
8.
BessellASellDWhitingP, et al.Speech and language therapy interventions for children with cleft palate: a systematic review. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2013;50(1):1–17. doi:10.1597/11-202
9.
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
10.
FujikiRBThibeaultSL. Are children with cleft palate at increased risk for laryngeal pathology?Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2023;60(11):1385–1394. doi:10.1177/10556656221104027
11.
LehesLNumaJSõberLPadrikMKasenõmmPJagomägiT. The effect of velopharyngeal insufficiency on voice quality in Estonian children with cleft palate. Clin Linguist Phon.2021;35(5):393–404. doi:10.1080/02699206.2020.1780323
12.
GuralnickMJConnorRTHammondMAGottmanJMKinnishK. The peer relations of preschool children with communication disorders. Child Dev. 1996;67(2):471–489.
13.
CummingsL. Communication disorders: a complex population in healthcare. Lang Health. 2023;1(2):12–19. doi:10.1016/j.laheal.2023.06.005
14.
PedersenHMGoodiePABradenMNThibeaultSL. Comparing quality of life and perceptual speech ratings in children with cleft palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2021;58(2):139–145. doi:10.1177/1055665620949435
15.
BarrLThibeaultSLMuntzHde SerresL. Quality of life in children with velopharyngeal insufficiency. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg.2007;133(3):224–229. doi:10.1001/archotol.133.3.224
16.
TsangarisEWong RiffKWYGoodacreT, et al.Establishing content validity of the CLEFT-Q: a new patient-reported outcome instrument for cleft lip/palate. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2017;5(4):e1305. doi:10.1097/GOX.0000000000001305
17.
SkirkoJRWeaverEMPerkinsJAKinterSEblenLSieKCY. Validity and responsiveness of VELO: a velopharyngeal insufficiency quality of life measure. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2013;149(2):304–311. doi:10.1177/0194599813486081
18.
MarkhamCvan LaarDGibbardDDeanT. Children with speech, language and communication needs: their perceptions of their quality of life. Int J Lang Commun Disord.2009;44(5):748–768. doi:10.1080/13682820802359892
19.
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
20.
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
21.
PerryJL. Anatomy and physiology of the velopharyngeal mechanism. Semin Speech Lang.2011;32(2):83–92. doi:10.1055/s-0031-1277712
Trost-CardamoneJE. Coming to terms with VPI: a response to loney and bloem. Cleft Palate J. 1989;26(1):68–70.
24.
HussainSAVijayakumarCBalasubramanianS, et al.Management of velopharyngeal dysfunction (vpd) following cleft palate repair: a comprehensive decision-making process based on severity and structural deficiencies. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2024;62(5):761–771. doi:10.1177/10556656231225573.
25.
FujikiRBKostasGThibeaultSL. Relationship between auditory-perceptual and objective measures of resonance in children with cleft palate: effects of intelligibility and dysphonia. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2024;61(8):1245–1256. doi:10.1177/10556656231162238.
26.
SkirkoJRWeaverEMPerkinsJKinterSSieKCY. Modification and evaluation of a velopharyngeal insufficiency quality-of-life instrument. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg.2012;138(10):929–935. doi:10.1001/2013.jamaoto.122
27.
WattersonTManciniMBrancampTULewisKE. Relationship between the perception of hypernasality and social judgments in school-aged children. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2013;50(4):498–502. doi:10.1597/11-126
28.
SkirkoJRWeaverEMPerkinsJA, et al.Change in quality of life with velopharyngeal insufficiency surgery. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2015;153(5):857–864. doi:10.1177/0194599815591159
29.
BhuskuteASkirkoJRRothCBayoumiADurbin-JohnsonBTollefsonTT. Association of velopharyngeal insufficiency with quality of life and patient-reported outcomes after speech surgery. JAMA Facial Plast Surg. 2017;19(5):406–412. doi:10.1001/jamafacial.2017.0639
30.
RidgellLRothCTBowM, et al.Ecuadorian Spanish translation and validation of the VELO quality of life instrument. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol.2020;138:110312. doi:10.1016/j.ijporl.2020.110312
31.
SkirkoJRSantillanaRMRothCTDunbarCTollefsonTT. Spanish linguistic validation of the velopharyngeal insufficiency effects on life outcomes: VELO-spanish. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2018;6(11):e1986. doi:10.1097/GOX.0000000000001986
32.
BruneelLVan LierdeKBettensK, et al.Health-related quality of life in patients with cleft palate: validity and reliability of the VPI effects on life outcomes (VELO) questionnaire translated to Dutch. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol.2017;98:91–96. doi:10.1016/j.ijporl.2017.04.049
33.
DenadaiRRaposo-AmaralCESabbagA, et al.Brazilian-Portuguese Linguistic validation of the velopharyngeal insufficiency effects on life outcome instrument. J Craniofac Surg. 2019;30(8):2308–2312. doi:10.1097/SCS.0000000000005679
34.
BruneelLBettensKVan LierdeK. The relationship between health-related quality of life and speech in patients with cleft palate. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol.2019;120:112–117. doi:10.1016/j.ijporl.2019.02.018
35.
BoyceJOSanchezKAmorDJ, et al.Exploring the speech and language of individuals with non-syndromic submucous cleft palate: a preliminary report. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2019;54(5):767–778. doi:10.1111/1460-6984.12474
36.
PereiraVJSellD. How differences in anatomy and physiology and other aetiology affect the way we label and describe speech in individuals with cleft lip and palate. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2024;59(6):2181–2196. doi:10.1111/1460-6984.12946.
37.
SandAHagbergELohmanderA. On the benefits of speech-language therapy for individuals born with cleft palate: a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data. J Speech Lang Hear Res.2022;65(2):555–573. doi:10.1044/2021_JSLHR-21-00367
38.
ElmendorfEND’AntonioLLHardestyRA. Assessment of the patient with cleft lip and palate: a developmental approach. Clin Plast Surg.1993;20(4):607–621. doi:10.1016/S0094-1298(20)32432-9
39.
LienKMSchererNJCorderoKNSitzmanTJ. Speech production errors in children with cleft palate with or without cleft lip. J Speech Lang Hear Res.2023;66(3):849–862. doi:10.1044/2022_JSLHR-22-00264
40.
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
41.
HardingAGrunwellP. Characteristics of cleft palate speech. Int J Lang Commun Disord.1996;31(4):331–357. doi:10.3109/13682829609031326
42.
MillerN. Measuring up to speech intelligibility. Int J Lang Commun Disord.2013;48(6):601–612. doi:10.1111/1460-6984.12061
43.
WhitehillTLGotzkeCLHodgeM. Speech intelligibility. In: Cleft palate speech: assessment and intervention. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2011:293–304. doi:10.1002/9781118785065.ch16
44.
HenningssonGKuehnDPSellD, et al.Universal parameters for reporting speech outcomes in individuals with cleft palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2008;45(1):1–17. doi:10.1597/06-086.1
45.
WhitehillTL. Assessing intelligibility in speakers with cleft palate: a critical review of the literature. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2002;39(1):50–58. doi:10.1597/1545-1569_2002_039_0050_aiiswc_2.0.co_2
46.
BettensKAlighieriCBruneelLDe MeulemeesterLVan LierdeK. Peer attitudes toward children with cleft (lip and) palate related to speech intelligibility, hypernasality and articulation. J Commun Disord.2020;85:105991. doi:10.1016/j.jcomdis.2020.105991
47.
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.
48.
SwainSKNahakBSahooLMunjalSSahuMC. Pediatric dysphonia—A review. Indian J Child Health. 2019:1–5. Published online January 25, 2019:1-5. doi:10.32677/IJCH.2019.v06.i01.001.
49.
PickettJM. Effects of vocal force on the intelligibility of speech sounds. J Acoust Soc Am.2005;28(5):902–905. doi:10.1121/1.1908510
50.
PorcaroCKEvittsPMKingN, et al.Effect of dysphonia and cognitive-perceptual listener strategies on speech intelligibility. J Voice.2020;34(5):806.e7–806.e18. doi:10.1016/j.jvoice.2019.03.013
51.
ShenJHeller MurrayEKulickER. The effect of breathy vocal quality on speech intelligibility and listening effort in background noise. Trends Hear. 2023;27:23312165231206925. doi:10.1177/23312165231206925
52.
FujikiRBThibeaultSL. Voice disorder prevalence and vocal health characteristics in children. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2024;150(8):677–687. doi:10.1001/jamaoto.2024.1516
53.
NaiduPYaoCAChongDKMageeWP. Cleft palate repair: a history of techniques and variations. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2022;10(3):e4019. doi:10.1097/GOX.0000000000004019
54.
HuSLevinsonJRoussoJJ. Revision surgery of the cleft palate. Semin Plast Surg. 2020;34(2):120–128. doi:10.1055/s-0040-1709429
55.
MannKAlveyJCMartyCMurphyNA. Health-related quality of life and family functioning of parents of children with medical complexity. Curr Phys Med Rehabil Rep. 2019;7(1):23–29. doi:10.1007/s40141-019-0208-2
56.
Al-NamankanyAAlhubaishiA. Effects of cleft lip and palate on children’s psychological health: a systematic review. J Taibah Univ Med Sci. 2018;13(4):311–318. doi:10.1016/j.jtumed.2018.04.007
57.
BransonEKBransonVMMcGrathRRausaVCKilpatrickNCroweLM. Psychological and peer difficulties of children with cleft lip and/or palate: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2024;61(2):258–270. doi:10.1177/10556656221125377
58.
HuangHHHsuJWHuangKL, et al.Congenital cleft lip and palate and elevated risks of major psychiatric disorders: a nationwide longitudinal study. Clin Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2024;29(2):637–647. doi:10.1177/13591045231200665.
59.
GhorbanzadehMNasimiFNorouzitabarMHabib AgahiRZareiZKalkateZ. Mental health status of children with cleft palate and lip referred to shiraz orthodontic research center. Shenakht J Psychol Psychiatr. 2021;8(4):1–10. doi:10.32598/shenakht.8.4.1
60.
GuillénARPeñacobaCRomeroM. Psychological variables in children and adolescents with cleft lip and/or palate. J Clin Pediatr Dentist. 2020;44(2):116–122. doi:10.17796/1053-4625-44.2.9
61.
DumontLUrbenSGomesAC, et al.Bullying in Swiss Youth Born with a unilateral cleft lip and palate by self- and parent-report. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2023;61(10):1735–1742. doi:10.1177/10556656231181006.
62.
YusoffMSBMohd IbrahimH. The impact of cleft lip and palate on the quality of life of young children: a scoping review. Med J Malaysia.2023;78:250–258.
63.
GomesACRebeloMABde QueirozAC, et al.Socioeconomic status, social support, oral health beliefs, psychosocial factors, health behaviours and health-related quality of life in adolescents. Qual Life Res. 2020;29(1):141–151. doi:10.1007/s11136-019-02279-6
PaceALuoRHirsh-PasekKGolinkoffRM. Identifying pathways between socioeconomic status and language development. Annu Rev Linguist. 2017;3(1):285–308. doi:10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011516-034226
66.
Der NederlandenSJSchaefferJCBakelHHJAVDirksE. Socio-economic status and other potential risk factors for language development in the first year of life. J Child Lang. 2023; Advance online publication:1–21. doi:10.1017/S0305000923000478.
67.
EvansGW. The environment of childhood poverty. Am Psychol. 2004;59(2):77–92. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.59.2.77
68.
ShonkoffJPGarnerAS, The Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health COEC Adoption, and Dependent Care, and Section on Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, et al.The lifelong effects of early childhood adversity and toxic stress. Pediatrics. 2012;129(1):e232–e246. doi:10.1542/peds.2011-2663
69.
Brooks-GunnJDuncanGJ. The effects of poverty on children. Future Child. 1997;7(2):55–71.
70.
FujikiRBThibeaultSL. Socioeconomic status, voice disorder risk, and voice-related handicap across childhood. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2025;151(10):967–975. doi:10.1001/jamaoto.2025.2633.
71.
VaragurKMurphyJSkolnickGB, et al.Impact of neighborhood deprivation and social vulnerability on outcomes and interventions in patients with cleft palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2024;62(5):801–810. doi:10.1177/10556656231226070.
72.
FujikiRBLienKMMundayJThibeaultSL. Cleft outcomes research NETwork (CORNET) consortium. Socioeconomic deprivation detrimentally influences language outcomes in toddlers with cleft palate. J Speech Lang Hear Res.2024;67(9):3113–3132. doi:10.1044/2024_JSLHR-24-00060
73.
KalitaSGirishKSPMMahadeva 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
74.
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
75.
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):272–288. doi:10.1597/04-141.1
76.
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
77.
KummerAW. The MacKay-Kummer SNAP Test-R Simplified Nasometric Assessment Procedures Revised 2005. Published online January 1, 2005. doi:10.13140/2.1.2614.6080.
78.
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
79.
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
80.
HiranoM. Clinical Examination of Voice. Springer-Verlag; 1981.
81.
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
82.
FujikiRBThibeaultS. Examining relationships between GRBAS ratings and acoustic, aerodynamic and patient-reported voice measures in adults with voice disorders. J Voice. 2023;37(3):390–397. doi:10.1016/j.jvoice.2021.02.007
83.
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. 2021;7(1):180–189. doi:10.1002/lio2.705
84.
McLeodSHarrisonLJMcCormackJ. The Intelligibility in Context Scale: validity and reliability of a subjective rating measure. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2012;55(2):648–656. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2011/10-0130)
85.
Trost-CardamoneJE. American English Sentence Sample: a controlled sample for assessing cleft palate speech outcome. Presented at: American Cleft Palate Association Annual Meeting; 2012; San Jose, CA.
DemarkDRVMorrisHL. A preliminary study of the predictive value of the IPAT. Cleft Palate J.1977;14(2):124–130. Accessed December 13, 2023. https://cleftpalatejournal.pitt.edu/ojs/cleftpalate/article/view/666.
88.
BzochKR. Articulation proficiency and error patterns of preschool cleft palate and normal children. Cleft Palate J.1965;2(4):340–349. Accessed July 31, 2022. http://cleftpalatejournal.pitt.edu/ojs/cleftpalate/article/view/87.
89.
DemarkDRVMorrisHLVandeHaarC. Patterns of articulation abilities in speakers with cleft palate. Cleft Palate J.1979;16(3):230–239. Accessed July 31, 2022. http://cleftpalatejournal.pitt.edu/ojs/cleftpalate/article/view/789.
90.
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
91.
KindAJHBuckinghamWR. Making neighborhood-disadvantage metrics accessible—the neighborhood atlas. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(26):2456–2458. doi:10.1056/NEJMp1802313
92.
ShermanDSpriestersbachDCNollJD. Glottal stops in the speech of children with cleft palates. J Speech Hear Disorders. 1959;24(1):37–42. doi:10.1044/jshd.2401.37
93.
HeLZhangJLiuQZhangJYinHLechM. Automatic detection of glottal stop in cleft palate speech. Biomed Signal Process Control.2018;39:230–236. doi:10.1016/j.bspc.2017.07.027
94.
FujikiRBMundayJJohnsonRThibeaultSL. Laryngeal aerodynamics, acoustics, and hypernasality in children with cleft palate. J Speech Lang Hear Res.2025;68(4):1676–1690. doi:10.1044/2024_JSLHR-24-00763
95.
AburDPerkellJSSteppCE. Impact of vocal effort on respiratory and articulatory kinematics. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2022;65(1):5–21. doi:10.1044/2021_JSLHR-21-00323
96.
BettensKDe KeyserKVan LierdeK. Peer attitudes towards children with cleft lip and palate: an interaction of visual and auditory cues?J Commun Disord.2025;115:106530. doi:10.1016/j.jcomdis.2025.106530
97.
HavstamCLaaksoKLohmanderARingsbergKC. Taking charge of communication: adults’ descriptions of growing up with a cleft-related speech impairment. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2011;48(6):717–726. doi:10.1597/10-033
98.
HuntOBurdenDHepperPStevensonMJohnstonC. Self-reports of psychosocial functioning among children and young adults with cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2006;43(5):598–605. doi:10.1597/05-080
99.
NoorSNFMMusaS. Assessment of patients’ level of satisfaction with cleft treatment using the cleft evaluation profile. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2007;44(3):292–303. doi:10.1597/05-151
100.
WeissmanJPTaritsaIReddyNK, et al.Do race and socioeconomic status affect date of initial presentation and repair of patients with cleft lip ± palate and head shape conditions?. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2025;62(4):653–658. doi:10.1177/10556656231219417.
101.
ChuDYO’SheaAWKnazzeJT, et al.The association of neighborhood disadvantage with surgical outcomes and follow-up adherence in patients with cleft palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2025. Published online September 24, 2025:10556656251381640. doi:10.1177/10556656251381640
102.
SitzmanTJKirschnerRETemkitM, et al.The influence of surgical technique and surgical skill on outcomes of cleft palate repair. Plast Reconstr Surg.2025. Published online 2025:10.1097/PRS.0000000000012422. doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000012422
