Classification of Speech Nasality of Individuals with Cleft Lip and Palate with Distinct Ordinal Scales

Overview

Journal Codas

Date 2025 Jan 29

PMID 39879425

Authors

Gisele Fonseca do Carmo

Jeniffer de Cassia Rillo Dutka

Flora Taube Manicardi

Beatriz Campanine Geremias

Maria Ines Pegoraro-Krook

Viviane Cristina de Castro Marino

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose: To investigate whether there is a difference in the classification of speech hypernasality by inexperienced listeners using different ordinal scales; to verify the agreement of the listeners in the analyses when using these scales; and to verify whether the order in which the scales are presented influences the results.

Methods: Twenty Speech-Language Pathology students classified the degrees of hypernasality of 40 (oral) samples from patients with cleft lip and palate. Ten performed the classifications using a 4-point scale (absent, mild, moderate, and severe) and, after two weeks, using a 3-point scale (absent, slightly hypernasal, and very hypernasal). Other ten students performed the same classifications, but in reverse order. The classifications were made remotely and documented on a form.

Results: The average percentage of correct responses by the students, in relation to the gold standard, was significantly higher for the 3-point scale. There was no significant interaction between the order of presentation and the scale for the percentage of correct classifications. The students' agreement with the gold standard assessment was fair (3-point scale) and moderate (4-point scale). The mean percentage of agreement of the intra-rater analyses was significantly higher for the 3-point scale. There was no significant interaction between presentation order and scale for the percentage of intra-rater classifications. The Kappa coefficient index showed more favorable intra-rater agreement for the reduced scale.

Conclusion: The reduced scale favored the classification of speech hypernasality by listeners and can be considered an important strategy to favor the initial evaluations of students in Speech Therapy during their training.

References

Manicardi F, Dutka J, Guerra T, Pegoraro-Krook M, Federighi Baisi Chagas E, Marino V . Effect of perceptive-auditory training on the classification of speech hypernasality. Codas. 2023; 35(6):e20220069. PMC: 10723581. DOI: 10.1590/2317-1782/20232022069pt. View

Baylis A, Chapman K, Whitehill T . Validity and Reliability of Visual Analog Scaling for Assessment of Hypernasality and Audible Nasal Emission in Children With Repaired Cleft Palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2014; 52(6):660-70. DOI: 10.1597/14-040. View

Burstein F . Bone substitutes. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2000; 37(1):1-4. DOI: 10.1597/1545-1569_2000_037_0001_esntit_2.3.co_2. View

Spruijt N, Beenakker M, Verbeek M, Heinze Z, Breugem C, Mink van der Molen A . Reliability of the Dutch Cleft Speech Evaluation Test and Conversion to the Proposed Universal Scale. J Craniofac Surg. 2018; 29(2):390-395. DOI: 10.1097/SCS.0000000000004261. View

Henningsson G, Kuehn D, Sell D, Sweeney T, Trost-Cardamone J, Whitehill T . 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. View

Butts S, Truong A, Forde C, Stefanov D, Marrinan E . Perceptual Assessment of Velopharyngeal Dysfunction by Otolaryngology Residents. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2016; 155(6):1034-1039. DOI: 10.1177/0194599816662247. View

Lohmander A, Persson C, Willadsen E, Lundeborg I, Alaluusua S, Aukner R . Scandcleft randomised trials of primary surgery for unilateral cleft lip and palate: 4. Speech outcomes in 5-year-olds - velopharyngeal competency and hypernasality. J Plast Surg Hand Surg. 2017; 51(1):27-37. DOI: 10.1080/2000656X.2016.1254645. View

Ramos-Favaretto F, Fukushiro A, Scarmagnani R, Yamashita R . Borg scale: a new method for hypernasality rating. Codas. 2019; 31(6):e20180296. DOI: 10.1590/2317-1782/20192018296. View

Zraick R, Liss J . A comparison of equal-appearing interval scaling and direct magnitude estimation of nasal voice quality. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2001; 43(4):979-88. DOI: 10.1044/jslhr.4304.979. View

Bressmann T, Sell D . Plus ça change: selected papers on speech research from the 1964 issue of the Cleft Palate Journal. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2014; 51(2):124-8. DOI: 10.1597/13-310. View

10.

Landis J, Koch G . The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977; 33(1):159-74. View

11.

Kappen I, Bittermann D, Janssen L, Bittermann G, Boonacker C, Haverkamp S . Long-Term Follow-Up Study of Young Adults Treated for Unilateral Complete Cleft Lip, Alveolus, and Palate by a Treatment Protocol Including Two-Stage Palatoplasty: Speech Outcomes. Arch Plast Surg. 2017; 44(3):202-209. PMC: 5447529. DOI: 10.5999/aps.2017.44.3.202. View

12.

Lee A, Potts S, Bressmann T . Speech-language therapy students' auditory-perceptual judgements of simulated concurrent hypernasality and articulation disorders. Clin Linguist Phon. 2019; 34(5):479-492. DOI: 10.1080/02699206.2019.1655666. View

13.

Watterson T, Mancini M, Brancamp T, Lewis K . Relationship between the perception of hypernasality and social judgments in school-aged children. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2012; 50(4):498-502. DOI: 10.1597/11-126. View

14.

Yamashita R, Borg E, Granqvist S, Lohmander A . Reliability of Hypernasality Rating: Comparison of 3 Different Methods for Perceptual Assessment. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2018; 55(8):1060-1071. DOI: 10.1177/1055665618767116. View

15.

Peter S, Abdul Rahman Z, Pillai S . Hypernasality in singing among children with cleft palate: a preliminary study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2019; 48(10):1317-1322. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijom.2019.03.896. View

16.

Marino V, Dutka J, Manicardi F, Gifalli G, Silva P, Pegoraro-Krook M . Influence of speech stimuli in the auditory perceptual identification of hypernasality in individuals with cleft lip and palate. Codas. 2020; 32(6):e20190269. DOI: 10.1590/2317-1782/20202019269. View

17.

Imatomi S . Effects of breathy voice source on ratings of hypernasality. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2005; 42(6):641-8. DOI: 10.1597/03-146.1. View

18.

Oliveira A, Scarmagnani R, Fukushiro A, Yamashita R . The influence of listener training on the perceptual assessment of hypernasality. Codas. 2016; 28(2):141-8. DOI: 10.1590/2317-1782/20162015163. View

19.

Jung S, Ha S, Koh K, Oh T . Clinical interventions and speech outcomes for individuals with submucous cleft palate. Arch Plast Surg. 2020; 47(6):542-550. PMC: 7700856. DOI: 10.5999/aps.2020.00612. View