Artigo Original

Normative nasalance scores in Chilean adults

Felipe Inostroza-Allende; Mirta Palomares-Aguilera; Matías Gonzalez Jara; Camilo Quezada Gaponov; Carlos Giugliano Villarroel; María Inés Pegoraro-Krook

Downloads: 0
Views: 195


Purpose: The present study is aimed towards determining and comparing normative nasalance scores in Chilean Spanish-speaking adult men and women. Methods: 40 women (age range 18 to 35, X = 25.79, SD = 5.83) and 36 men (age range 18 to 35, X = 26.45, SD = 4.08) were invited to participate, all of them without any previous speech therapy, neurological pathologies, intellectual deficits, hearing loss, syndromes, or other diagnosed pathologies that could impact speech production. A study of proper velopharyngeal function was performed, using a perceptual resonance evaluation. Nasalance was determined using a model 6450 Nasometer, during the reading of three standardized speech samples in Spanish: a nasal passage (NP), an oronasal passage (ONP), and an oral passage (OP). Also, the nasalance distance was calculated. Genders were compared using Wilcoxon tests for independent samples. Results: The NP presented the highest percentage of nasalance, with 52.13% (± 4.73), followed by the ONP with 25.38% (± 3.7), and finally the OP, which presented the lowest value of 14.15% (± 5.03). Meanwhile, nasalance distance was 37.98% (± 5.32). Finally, no significant differences were observed when comparing the nasalance between genders (p >0.05). Conclusion: The nasalance values obtained were similar to those observed for other Spanish speakers. Also, male and women showed similar scores. The results of this study are a contribution to the indirect assessment of velopharyngeal function in Chilean adults.


Nasalance; Velopharyngeal Insufficiency; Cleft Palate; Speech and Language Pathology; Speech


1. Johns DF, Rohrich RJ, Awada M. Velopharyngeal incompetence: a guide for clinical evaluation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2003;112(7):1890-7. http:// PMid:14663236.

2. Smith BE, Kuehn DP. Speech evaluation of velopharyngeal dysfunction. J Craniofac Surg. 2007;18(2):251-61. SCS.0b013e31803ecf3b. PMid:17414269.

3. Kuehn DP, Moller KT. Speech and language issues in the cleft palate population: the state of the art. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2000;37(4):348.;2.

4. Fletcher SG. Theory and instrumentation for quantitative measurement of nasality. Cleft Palate J. 1970;7:601-9. PMid:5270509.

5. Mayo R, Floyd LA, Warren DW, Dalston RM, Mayo CM. Nasalance and nasal area values: cross-racial study. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1996;33(2):143- 9. PMid:8695622.

6. Marrinan EM, LaBrie RA, Mulliken JB. Velopharyngeal function in nonsyndromic cleft palate: relevance of surgical technique, age at repair, and cleft type. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1998;35(2):95-100. http://dx.doi. org/10.1597/1545-1569_1998_035_0095_vfincp_2.3.co_2. PMid:9527305.

7. Bicknell S, McFadden LR, Curran JB. Frequency of pharyngoplasty after primary repair of cleft palate. J Can Dent Assoc. 2002;68(11):688-92. PMid:12513937.

8. Henningsson G, Kuehn DP, Sell D, Sweeney T, Trost-Cardamone JE, Whitehill TL. Universal parameters for reporting speech outcomes in individuals with cleft palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2008;45(1):1-17. PMid:18215095. Inostroza-Allende et al. CoDAS 2022;34(6):e20210152 DOI: 10.1590/2317-1782/20212021152 5/6

9. Bettens K, Wuyts FL, Van Lierde KM. Instrumental assessment of velopharyngeal function and resonance: a review. J Commun Disord. 2014;52:170-83. http:// PMid:24909583.

10. Bressmann T. Comparison of nasalance scores obtained with the Nasometer, the NasalView, and the OroNasal System. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2005;42(4):423-33. PMid:16001925.

11. Dalston RM, Warren DW, Dalston ET. Use of nasometry as a diagnostic tool for identifying patients with velopharyngeal impairment. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1991;28(2):184-9. 1569_1991_028_0184_uonaad_2.3.co_2. PMid:2069975.

12. Anderson RT. Nasometric values for normal Spanish-speaking females: a preliminary report. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1996;33(4):333-6. http://dx.doi. org/10.1597/1545-1569_1996_033_0333_nvfnss_2.3.co_2. PMid:8827391.

13. Marino VC, Dutka JC, de Boer G, Cardoso VM, Ramos RG, Bressmann T. Normative nasalance scores for brazilian portuguese using new speech stimuli. Folia Phoniatr Logop. 2015;67(5):238-44. http://dx.doi. org/10.1159/000441976. PMid:26844554.

14. van Doorn J, Purcell A. Nasalance levels in the speech of normal Australian children. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1998;35(4):287-92. http://dx.doi. org/10.1597/1545-1569_1998_035_0287_nlitso_2.3.co_2. PMid:9684764.

15. van Lierde KM, Wuyts FL, De Bodt M, van Cauwenberge P. Nasometric values for normal nasal resonance in the speech of young Flemish adults. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2001;38(2):112-8. 1569_2001_038_0112_nvfnnr_2.0.co_2.

16. Park M, Baek WS, Lee E, Koh KS, Kim BK, Baek R. Nasalance scores for normal Korean-speaking adults and children. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2014;67(2):173-7. PMid:24211114.

17. Sweeney T, Sell D, O’Regan M. Nasalance scores for normal-speaking Irish children. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2004;41(2):168-74. http://dx.doi. org/10.1597/02-094. PMid:14989687.

18. Tachimura T, Mori C, Hirata SI, Wada T. Nasalance score variation in normal adult Japanese speakers of Mid-West Japanese dialect. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2000;37(5):463-7. 1569_2000_037_0463_nsvina_2.0.co_2. PMid:11034028.

19. Awan SN, Virani A. Nasometer 6200 versus nasometer II 6400: effect on measures of nasalance. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2013;50(3):268-74. http:// PMid:22906390.

20. Nichols AC. Nasalance statistics for two Mexican populations. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1999;36(1):57-63. 1569_1999_036_0057_nsftmp_2.3.co_2. PMid:10067763.

21. - Suárez-Brand J, Flores-Romero R, Espinosa P. Empleo del nasómetro 6200 en la evaluación fonoaudiológica de la nasalidad en infantes colombianos. Rev Fac Med . 2011;59(3):245-54.

22. - Santos Terron MJ, Gonzalez-Landa G, Sanchez-Ruiz I. Normal patterns of nasalance in children who speak Castilian. Rev Esp Foniatrica. 1991;4:71-5.

23. Awan SN, Omlor K, Watts CR. Effects of computer system and vowel loading on measures of nasalance. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2011;54(5):1284-94. PMid:21498579.

24. Lewis KE, Watterson T. Comparison of nasalance scores obtained from the Nasometer and the NasalView. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2003;40(1):40-5. PMid:12498604.

25. Inostroza A F, Urzúa V S, Giugliano V C, Palomares A M. Resultados de habla en la rehabilitación protésica de la insuficiencia velofaríngea secundaria a fisura palatina. Reporte de caso. Rev Otorrinolaringol Cir Cabeza Cuello. 2019;79(2):185-90.

26. - Rochet AP, Rochet BL, Sovis EA, Mielke DL. Characteristics of nasalance in speakers of western Canadian English and French. CJSLPA. 1998;22(1):94-103.

27. Lewis KE, Watterson T, Quint T. The effect of vowels on nasalance scores. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2000;37(6):584-9. 1569_2000_037_0584_teovon_2.0.co_2. PMid:11108528.

28. Watterson T, Lewis KE, Foley-Homan N. Effect of stimulus length on nasalance scores. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 1999;36(3):243-7. http://dx.doi. org/10.1597/1545-1569_1999_036_0243_eoslon_2.3.co_2. PMid:10342612.

29. Watterson T, Lewis KE. Test-retest nasalance score variability in hypernasal speakers. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2006;43(4):415-9. http://dx.doi. org/10.1597/05-104.1. PMid:16854198.

30. de Boer G, Bressmann T. Comparison of nasalance scores obtained with the nasometers 6200 and 6450. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2014;51(1):90-7. PMid:23551073.

627fcc80a953952cff5b85b2 codas Articles


Share this page
Page Sections