Relationship between the Perception of Hypernasality and Social Judgments in School-Aged Children

Abstract

Purpose

This study investigated both the ability of children to rate nasality and the relationship of those ratings to expert ratings and social acceptance judgments.

Method

A total of 10 speech samples were judged for nasality by 44 children ranging in age from 8 to 11 and by an expert judge. Listeners rated nasality on a 3-point response scale. The peer listeners also made five social acceptance ratings about each speaker.

Results

Kappas for interrater reliability were moderate to substantial. There was no difference between peer ratings and expert ratings. As ratings of nasality increased, social acceptance ratings became more negative.

Conclusion

Professionals who evaluate and treat children with cleft palate should consider the negative social consequences of even mild hypernasality.

Keywords

children hypernasality peer ratings social judgments

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. Scope of practice in speech-language pathology. 2007. Available at http://www.asha.org/docs/html/SP2007-00283.html. Accessed November 15, 2011.

Blood

G.W.

Hyman

Children's perception of nasal resonance. J Speech Hear Disord. 1977; 42: 446–448.

Bzoch

K.R.

Introduction to the study of communicative disorders in cleft palate and related anomalies. In: Bzoch

K.R.

, ed. Communicative Disorders Related to Cleft Lip and Palate. 4th ed. Austin: Pro-Ed; 1997: 3–44.

Chambers

T.C.

Johnston

Developmental differences in children's use of rating scales. J Pediatr Psychol. 2002; 27: 27–36.

Eadie

T.L.

Kapsner-Smith

The effect of experience and anchors on judgments of dysphonia. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2011; 54: 430–447.

Fletcher

S.J.

“Nasalance” vs. listener judgements of nasality. Cleft Palate J. 1976; 13: 31–44.

Landis

J.R.

Koch

G.G.

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

Lewis

K.E.

Watterson

Houghton

The influence of listener experience and academic training on ratings of nasality. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1999; 36: 49–58.

Riski

J.E.

Speech outcome following palatoplasty in primary school children: do lay observers agree with speech pathologists?

Plast Reconstr Surg. 1996; 98: 966–970.

10.

Schultz

J.R.

Pyschosocial aspects of cleft lip/palate and craniofacial anomalies. In: Kummer

A.W.

, ed. Cleft Palate and Craniofacial Anomalies: Effects on Speech and Resonance. 2nd ed. Clifton Park: Thomson; 2008: 279–295.

11.

SpeechPathology.com. The conceptual framework of ASHA's new scope of practice for speech-language pathology. 2003. Available at http://www.speechpathology.com/articles/conceptual-framework-asha-s-new-1520-1520. Accessed September 28, 2011.

12.

Starr

C.D.

Moller

K.T.

Dawson

Graham

Skaar

Speech ratings by speech clinicians parents and children. Cleft Palate J. 1984; 2: 286–292.

13.

Subtelny

J.D.

Van Hattum

R.J.

Myers

B.B.

Ratings and measure of cleft palate speech. Cleft Palate J. 1972; 9: 18–27.

14.

Watterson

Hinton

McFarlane

S.C.

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

15.

Witt

P.D.

Berry

L.A.

Marsh

J.L.

Grames

L.M.

Pilgram

T.K.

Speech outcome following palatoplasty in primary school children: do lay peer observers agree with speech pathologists?

Plast Reconstr Surg. 1996; 98: 958–965.