To compare cross-linguistic auditory-perceptual nasality ratings and language-specific nasalance scores in Spanish-English bilingual children and adolescents with cleft palate.
Design
Retrospective case series.
Setting
Academic, tertiary pediatric hospital.
Participants
Spanish- and English-speaking patients with cleft palate who underwent a bilingual resonance and articulation evaluation.
Interventions/Comparisons
Auditory-perceptual nasality ratings versus nasalance scores.
Main Outcome Measures
Cross-linguistic ratings of hypernasality, hyponasality, and audible nasal emission; mean and maximum nasalance scores for oral- and nasal-loaded stimuli in each language.
Results
Eleven patients’ data were analyzed (six females and five males; mean age, 11.3 years). Oral-loaded mean nasalance strongly reflected perceptual hypernasality in both languages; hyponasality ratings showed no relationship to mean nasalance with nasal-loaded stimuli in either language; and audible nasal emissions were associated with maximum nasalance in Spanish but not English. Repeated-measures analyses revealed no significant effect of phoneme context, language, or their interaction on either mean or maximum nasalance.
Conclusions
Oral-loaded mean nasalance measures strongly reflect perceptual hypernasality in both languages. Audible nasal emissions are significantly associated with maximum nasalance scores in Spanish only, suggesting possible language-specific perceptual and acoustic patterns. Further research is needed to determine if these conclusions hold in a larger, prospective cohort.
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
2.
WhitehillTLChunJC. Intelligibility and acceptability in speakers with cleft palate. In: WindsorFKellyMLHewlettN, eds. Investigations in Clinical Phonetics and Linguistics. New York, NY: Psychology Press; 2012:405-415.
3.
Hardin-JonesMJonesDLDolezalRC. Opinions of speech-language pathologists regarding speech management for children with cleft lip and palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2020;57(1):55-64. doi:10.1177/1055665619857000
4.
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
5.
PhilipsBJ. Perceptual evaluation of velopharyngeal competency. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 1980;89(5 suppl):153-157. doi:10.1177/00034894800890S536
6.
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
7.
KummerAW. Cleft Palate and Craniofacial Conditions: A Comprehensive Guide to Clinical Management. 4th ed. Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning; 2020.
8.
EdwardsPDBonillaZE. The use of spanish language educational materials by American cleft palate–craniofacial association teams. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2004;41(6):655-660. doi:10.1597/03-019.1
9.
TaritsaICLedwonJKBajajAGosainAK. 12-Year Trends of orofacial clefts in the United States: Highlighting racial/ethnic differences in prevalence of cleft lip and cleft palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2025;62(5):820-828. doi:10.1177/10556656241227033
PerryJLKotlarekKMendezLHoltYFafulasSBroadwellK. Nasometric comparison between spanish–English bilingual and English monolingual children. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2019;56(3):331-339. doi:10.1177/1055665618786350
12.
ChapmanKLSitzmanTBaylisAHardin-JonesMKirschnerRTemkitMH. A comparative effectiveness study of speech and surgical outcomes: Study overview. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2025;62(10):1660-1675. doi:10.1177/10556656241274242
13.
SommerCL. Clinical assessment of velopharyngeal function: perceptual speech evaluation. In: KirschnerREBaylisAL, eds. Cleft Palate and Velopharyngeal Dysfunction: A Multidisciplinary Approach to Evaluation and Management. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland; 2025:87-96.
14.
Peris-HernándezCRosell-ClariVKummerAW. Nasalance scores in spanish-speaking children aged 3 to 5 years according to gender, age, and vowel load. Rev Investig Logop. 2024;14(1):e88054. doi:10.5209/rlog.88054
15.
Suárez-BrandJFlórez-RomeroREspinosa-ReyesP. Empleo del nasómetro 6200 en la evaluación fonoaudiológica de la nasalidad en infantes colombianos. Rev Fac Med. 2011;59(3):245-254.
16.
AndersonRT. Nasometric values for normal spanish-speaking females: A preliminary report. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1996;33(4):333-336. doi:10.1597/1545-1569_1996_033_0333_nvfnss_2.3.co_2
17.
Inostroza-AllendeFBaeza-PavezGDel Valle-RománPFernández-AntifilJYáñez-PavezCPino-CastilloJ. Perceptual evaluation of velopharyngeal insufficiency in people with cleft palate: An integrative literature review. Rev Chil Fonoaudiol. 2021;20(1):1–22. doi:10.5354/0719-4692.2021.61602
18.
CorderoKN. Assessment of Cleft Palate Articulation and Resonance in Familiar and Unfamiliar Languages: English, Spanish, and Hmong. Dissertation. University of Minnesota Twin Cities; 2008. https://hdl.handle.net/11299/45420.
19.
MayoCMMayoR. Normative nasalance values across languages. Echo. 2011;6(1):22-32.
20.
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
21.
BettensKWuytsFLJonckheereLPlatbroodSVan LierdeK. Influence of gender and age on the nasality severity Index 2.0 in Dutch-speaking flemish children and adults. Logop Phoniatr Vocol. 2017;42(3):133-140. doi:10.1080/14015439.2016.1245781
22.
BrunnegårdKvan DoornJ. Normative data on nasalance scores for Swedish as measured on the Nasometer: Influence of dialect, gender, and age. Clin Linguist Phon. 2009;23(1):58-69. doi:10.1080/02699200802491074
23.
D’haeseleerEBettensKDe MetsSDe MoorVVan LierdeK. Normative data and dialectical effects on nasalance in Flemish adults. Folia Phoniatr Logop. 2015;67(1):42-48. doi:10.1159/000374110
24.
PuaEHoltYKollaraLRangarathnamBFangXPerryJL. Evaluating nasalance values among bilingual Mandarin–English speakers. Cleft Palate Craniof J. 2019;56(4):462-470. doi:10.1177/1055665618791942
25.
Ünal–LogacevÖKummerAWÇetinCTopbaşS. Nasometric evaluation of resonance disorders: A norm study In Turkish. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2020;131(1):109888. doi:10.1016/j.ijporl.2020.109888
26.
CorderoKSommerCCummingsCChapmanKTrost-CardamoneJBaylisALDixonAWilson KDobbelsteynC.The development, trialing, and adaptation of standard American English and Spanish phrases for assessing speech in preschoolers with cleft lip and palate. Poster presented at: 79th Annual Meeting of the American Cleft-Palate and Craniofacial Association; March 2022; Fort Worth, TX.
27.
WilliamsJLPerryJLBuntonK, Cordero KN, Snodgrass TD, Singh DJ, Temkit H, Sitzman TJ.Velopharyngeal gap size during sustained vowel production correlates with perceptual ratings of hypernasality in connected speech. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2024;67(9):2977-2986. doi:10.1044/2024_JSLHR-24-00221
28.
ZajacDJ. Acoustic and aerodynamic assessment of speech and VP function. In: KirschnerREBaylisAL, eds. Cleft palate and velopharyngeal dysfunction: a multidisciplinary approach to evaluation and management. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland; 2025:113-130.
29.
ClumeckH. Patterns of soft palate movements in six languages. J Phon. 1976;4(4):337-351. doi:10.1016/S0095-4470(19)31260-4
30.
SoléMJ. Spatio-temporal patterns of velopharyngeal action in phonetic and phonological nasalization. Lang Speech. 1995;38(1):1-23. doi:10.1177/002383099503800101
31.
SoléMJ. Phonetic and phonological processes: The case of nasalization. Lang Speech. 1992;35(1-2):29-43. doi:10.1177/002383099203500204
32.
PellegrinoFCoupéCMarsicoE. Across-language perspective on speech information rate. Language (Baltim).2011;87(3):539-558. doi:10.1353/lan.2011.0057
33.
McCandlessA. Acoustic analysis of L1 and L2 Spanish vowels. In: Proceedings of the 2022 Annual Conference of the Canadian Linguistic Association. 2022:1-15. Accessed October 31, 2025. https://cla-acl.ca/pdfs/actes-2022/McCandless-CLA-2022.pdf.
34.
Gildersleeve-NeumannCEDalstonRM. Nasalance scores in noncleft individuals: Why not zero?Cleft Palate Craniof J. 2001;38(2):106-111. doi:10.1597/1545-1569_2001_038_0106_nsiniw_2.0.co_2
35.
ParadisJ. Do bilingual two-year-olds have separate phonological systems?Int J Biling. 2001;5(1):19-38. doi:10.1177/13670069010050010201
36.
AmengualM. The acoustic realization of language-specific phonological categories despite dynamic cross-linguistic influence in bilingual and trilingual speech. J Acoust Soc Am. 2021;149(2):1271-1284. doi:10.1121/10.0003559
37.
ChapmanKLBaylisATrost-CardamoneJ, Cordero KN, Dixon A, Dobbelsteyn C, Thurmes A, Wilson K, Harding-Bell A, Sweeney T, et al.The Americleft Speech Project: A training and reliability study. Cleft Palate Craniof J. 2016;53(1):93-108. doi:10.1597/14-027
38.
Trost-CardamoneJE. American English Sentence Sample: a controlled sample for assessing cleft palate speech outcome. Poster presented at: 69th Annual Meeting of the American Cleft Palate–Craniofacial Association; April 2012; San Jose, CA.
39.
KarnellMP. Nasometric discrimination of hypernasality and turbulent nasal airflow. Cleft Palate Craniof J. 1995;32(2):145-148. doi:10.1597/1545-1569_1995_032_0145_ndohat_2.3.co_2
40.
RollinsMOrenL. Effects of nasal emission and microphone placement on nasalance score during /s/. Proc Mtgs Acoust. 2021;42(1):060001. doi:10.1121/2.0001353
41.
OrenL. How nasal airflow can affect nasalance magnitude. Meeting Abstract presented at: 186th Meeting of the Acoustical Society of America; March 1, 2024; Ottawa, Canada. doi:10.1121/10.0027721.
42.
Gutiérrez–ClellenVFKreiterJ. Understanding child bilingual acquisition using parent and teacher reports. Appl Psycholinguist. 2003;24(2):267-288. doi:10.1017/S0142716403000158
43.
SAS 9.4 [Computer software]. Version M8. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.; 2023.
44.
SAS Institute Inc. The GLM Procedure. In: SAS/STAT User’s Guide. Version 15.3. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc; 2023:57.
45.
SAS Institute Inc. The MIXED Procedure. In: SAS/STAT User’s Guide. Version 15.3. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc; 2023:374.
46.
BrancampTULewisKEWattersonT. The relationship between nasalance scores and nasality ratings obtained with equal appearing interval and direct magnitude estimation scaling methods. Cleft Palate Craniof J. 2010;47(6):631-637. doi:10.1597/09-106
47.
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
48.
FujikiRBKostasGThibeaultSL. Relationship between auditory-perceptual and objective measures of resonance in children with cleft palate: Effects of intelligibility and dysphonia. Cleft Palate Craniof J. 2024;61(8):1245-1256. doi:10.1177/10556656231162238
49.
Fabiano-SmithLGoldsteinBA. Phonological acquisition in bilingual spanish–English speaking children. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2010;53(1):160-178. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2009/07-0064)
50.
WattersonTLewisKEMurdockTCorderoKN. Reliability and validity of nasality ratings between a monolingual and bilingual listener for speech samples from English-Spanish-speaking children. Folia Phoniatr Logop. 2013;65(2):91-97. doi:10.1159/000353809
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
