Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Objectives

To assess the nasalance/nasality relationship and Nasometer test sensitivity and specificity when nasality ratings are obtained with both equal appearing interval (EAI) and direct magnitude estimation (DME) scaling procedures. To test the linearity of the relationship between nasality ratings obtained from different perceptual scales.

Stimuli

Audio recordings of the Turtle Passage.

Design

Participants' nasalance scores and audio recordings were obtained simultaneously. A single judge rated the samples for nasality using both EAI and DME scaling procedures.

Participants

Thirty-nine participants 3 to 17 years of age. Across participants, resonance ranged from normal to severely hypernasal.

Main Outcome Measures

Nasalance scores and two nasality ratings.

Results

The magnitude of the correlation between nasalance scores and EAI ratings of nasality (r= .63) and between nasalance and DME ratings of nasality (r= .59) was not significantly different. Nasometer test sensitivity and specificity for EAI-rated nasality were .71 and .73, respectively. For DME-rated nasality, sensitivity and specificity were .62 and .70, respectively. Regression of EAI nasality ratings on DME nasality ratings did not depart significantly from linearity.

Conclusions

No difference was found in the relationship between nasalance and nasality when nasality was rated using EAI as opposed to DME procedures. Nasometer test sensitivity and specificity were similar for EAI-and DME-rated nasality. A linear model accounted for the greatest proportion of explained variance in EAI and DME ratings. Consequently, clinicians should be able to obtain valid and reliable estimates of nasality using EAI or DME.

Keywords

DME EAI nasalance nasality

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Barker

D.J.P.

, Rose

Epidemiology in Medical Practice. London: Churchill Livingstone; 1979: 34–35.

Bzoch

Measurement and assessment of categorical aspects of cleft palate speech. In: Bzoch

, ed. Communication Disorders Related to Cleft Lip and Palate. Boston: Little, Brown; 1979.

Cohen

A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 1960: 37–46.

Dalston

R.M.

, Warren

D.W.

, Dalston

The use of nasometry as a diagnostic tool for identifying patients with velopharyngeal impairment. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1991; 28: 184–189.

Eadie

T.L.

, Doyle

P.C.

Direct magnitude estimation and interval scaling of naturalness and severity in tracheoesophageal (TE) speakers. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2002; 45: 1088–1096.

Eadie

T.L.

, Doyle

P.C.

Direct magnitude estimation and interval scaling of pleasantness and severity in dysphonic and normal speakers. J Acous Soc Am. 2002; 112: 3014–3021.

Eisler

How prothetic is the continuum of smell?

Scand J Psych. 1963; 4: 29–32.

Engen

Psychophysics II. Scaling methods. In: Kling

J.W.

, Riggs

, eds. Woodworth and Schlossberg's Experimental Psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston; 1971.

Fletcher

S.G.

Nasalance versus listener judgments of nasality. Cleft Palate J. 1976; 13: 31–44.

10.

Guilford

J.P.

Fundamental Statistics in Psychology and Education. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1956.

11.

Hardin

M.A.

, Van Demark

D.R.

, Morris

H.L.

, Payne

M.M.

Correspondence between nasalance scores and listener judgments of hypernasality and hyponasality. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1992; 29: 346–351.

12.

Landis

J.R.

, Koch

G.G.

The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977; 33: 159–174.

13.

Lewis

K.E.

, Watterson

T.L.

, Houghton

S.M.

The influence of listener experience and academic training on ratings of nasality. J Commun Disord. 2003; 36: 49–58.

14.

McNemar

Psychological Statistics. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1955.

15.

Nellis

J.L.

, Nieman

G.S.

, Lehman

J.A.

Comparison of Nasometer and listener judgments of nasality in the assessment of velopharyngeal function after pharyngeal flap surgery. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1992; 29: 157–163.

16.

Schiavetti

, Martin

R.R.

, Haroldson

S.K.

, Metz

D.E.

Psychophysical analysis of audiovisual judgments of speech naturalness of nonstutterers and stutterers. J Speech Hear Res. 1994; 37: 46–52.

17.

Stevens

S.S.

Psychophysics. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1975.

18.

Toner

M.A.

, Emanuel

F.W.

, Parker

Relationship of spectral noise levels to psychophysical scaling of vowel roughness. J Speech Hear Res. 1990; 33: 238–244.

19.

Warren

R.M.

Anomalous loudness function for speech. J Acoust Soc Am. 1973; 54: 390–396.

20.

Warren

R.M.

, Sersen

E.A.

A basis for loudness-judgments. Am J Psych. 1958; 71: 700–709.

21.

Warren

R.M.

, Warren

R.P.

A critique of S.S. Stevens' “New Psychophysics.”

Percept Motor Skills. 1963; 16: 797–810.

22.

Watterson

, Hinton

, McFarlane

S.C.

Novel stimuli for obtaining nasalance measures from young children. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1996; 33: 67–73.

23.

Watterson

, Lewis

K.E.

, Deutsch

Nasalance and nasality in low pressure and high pressure speech. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1998; 35: 293–298.

24.

Watterson

, McFarlane

S.C.

, Wright

D.S.

The relationship between nasalance and nasality in children with cleft palate. J Commun Disord. 1993; 26: 13–28.

25.

Whitehill

T.L.

, Lee

A.S.Y.

, Chun

J.C.

Direct magnitude estimation and interval scaling of hypernasality. J Speech Hear Res. 2002; 45: 80–88.

26.

Zraick

R.I.

, Liss

J.M.

A comparison of equal-appearing interval scaling and direct magnitude estimation of nasal voice quality. J Speech Hear Res. 2000; 43: 979–988.

The Relationship between Nasalance Scores and Nasality Ratings Obtained with Equal Appearing Interval and Direct Magnitude Estimation Scaling Methods

Abstract

Objectives

Stimuli

Design

Participants

Main Outcome Measures

Results

Conclusions

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References