Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2016 May-Jun;82(3):326-33.
doi: 10.1016/j.bjorl.2015.05.017. Epub 2015 Dec 18.

Speech nasality and nasometry in cleft lip and palate

Fabiane Rodrigues Larangeira  1 , Jeniffer de Cássia Rillo Dutka  2 , Melina Evangelista Whitaker  3 , Olívia Mesquita Vieira de Souza  2 , José Roberto Pereira Lauris  2 , Mariana Jales Felix da Silva  4 , Maria Inês Pegoraro-Krook  2
Affiliations
Comparative Study

Speech nasality and nasometry in cleft lip and palate

Fabiane Rodrigues Larangeira et al. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol. 2016 May-Jun.

Abstract
in English, Spanish

Introduction: Perceptual evaluation is considered the gold standard to evaluate speech nasality. Several procedures are used to collect and analyze perceptual data, which makes it susceptible to errors. Therefore, there has been an increasing desire to find methods that can improve the assessment.

Objective: To describe and compare the results of speech nasality obtained by assessments of live speech, the Test of Hypernasality (THYPER), assessments of audio recorded speech, and nasometry.

Methods: A retrospective study consisting of 331 patients with operated unilateral cleft lip and palate. Speech nasality was assessed by four methods of assessment: live perceptual judgement, THYPER, audio-recorded speech sample judgement by multiple judges, and nasometry. All data were collected from medical records of patients, with the exception of the speech sample recording assessment, which was carried out by multiple judges.

Results: The results showed that the highest percentages of absence of hypernasality were obtained from judgements performed live and from the THYPER, with equal results between them (79%). Lower percentages were obtained from the recordings by judges (66%) and from nasometry (57%).

Conclusion: The best results among the four speech nasality evaluation methods were obtained for the ones performed live (live nasality judgement by a speech pathologist and THYPER).

Introdução: A avaliação perceptiva é considerada padrão-ouro para avaliar a nasalidade de fala. Vários procedimentos são utilizados para coletar e analisar os dados percebidos, o que a torna suscetível a erros. Por isso, há uma preocupação crescente na procura de métodos que possam aperfeiçoá-la.

Objetivo: Descrever e comparar os resultados da nasalidade de fala obtidos por meio de julgamento ao vivo, Teste de Hipernasalidade (THIPER), julgamento de gravações por juízes e nasometria.

Método: Estudo retrospectivo de 331 pacientes com fissura labiopalatina unilateral operada. Foi realizada a análise dos resultados do julgamento da nasalidade ao vivo e por meio de gravações por juízes, do THIPER e da nasometria. Os dados foram coletados do prontuário dos pacientes, com exceção do julgamento das gravações das amostras de fala, que foi realizado por juízes múltiplos.

Resultados: Foram obtidas porcentagens mais altas de ausência de hipernasalidade no julgamento ao vivo e no THIPER, com resultados iguais entre ambas (79%). Porcentagens menores de ausência de hipernasalidade foram obtidas no julgamento das gravações por juízes (66%) e para a nasometria (57%).

Conclusão: Os melhores resultados entre as quatro modalidades de avaliação da nasalidade de fala foram obtidos para as realizadas ao vivo (julgamento por um fonoaudiólogo e THIPER).

Keywords: Cleft palate; Diagnosis; Diagnóstico; Fala; Fissura palatina; Insuficiência velofaríngea; Medida da produção da fala; Speech; Speech production measurement; Velopharyngeal insufficiency.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Performing the Test of Hypernasality.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Patient undergoing nasometry.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Distribution in percentage of live judgement classification in the four-point scale.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Distribution in percentage of the classification of recorded sample judgement by judges in the four-point scale.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. 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;45:1–17. - PubMed
    1. Agrawal K. Cleft palate repair and variations. Indian J Plast Surg. 2009;42(Suppl):102–109. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Kummer A.W., Clark S.L., Redle E.E., Thomsen L.L., Billmire D.A. Current practice in assessing and reporting speech outcomes of cleft palate and velopharyngeal surgery: a survey of cleft palate/craniofacial professionals. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2012;49:146–152. - PubMed
    1. Smith B., Guyette T.W. Evaluation of cleft palate speech. Clin Plast Surg. 2004;31:251–260. - PubMed
    1. Sell D. Issues in perceptual speech analysis in cleft palate and related disorders: a review. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2005;40:103–121. - PubMed

Publication types