Classificação da nasalidade de fala de indivíduos com fissura labiopalatina com escalas ordinais distintas
Classification of speech nasality of individuals with cleft lip and palate with distinct ordinal scales
Gisele Fonseca do Carmo; Jeniffer de Cássia Rillo Dutka; Flora Taube Manicardi; Beatriz Campanine Geremias; Maria Inês Pegoraro-Krook; Viviane Cristina de Castro Marino
Resumo
Palavras-chave
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.
Keywords
References
1 Lohmander A, Persson C, Willadsen E, Lundeborg I, Alaluusua S, Aukner R, et al. 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.
2 Kummer AW. Management of velopharyngeal insufficiency: the evolution of care and the current state of the art. J Cleft Lip Palate Craniofacial Anomalies. 2019;6(2):65-72.
3 Baylis A, Chapman K, Whitehill TL, The Americleft Speech Group. Validity and reliability of visual analog scaling for assessment of hipernasality and audible nasal emission in children with repaired cleft palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2015;52(6):660-70.
4 Bruneel L, Danhieux A, Van Lierde K. Training speech pathology students in the perceptual evaluation of speech in patients with cleft palate: reliability results and the students’ perspective. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2022;157:111145.
5 Bettens K, De Bodt M, Maryn Y, Luyten A, Wuyts FL, Van Lierde KM. The relationship between the Nasality Severity Index 2.0 and perceptual judgments of hypernasality. J Commun Disord. 2016;62:67-81.
6 Oliveira ACASF, Scarmagnani RH, Fukushiro AP, Yamashita RP. The influence of listener training on the perceptual assessment of hypernasality. CoDAS. 2016;28(2):141-8.
7 Peter S, Abdul Rahman ZA, Pillai S. Hypernasality in singing among children with cleft palate: a preliminar study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2019;48(10):1317-22.
8 Yamashita RP, 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):1060-71.
9 Marino VCC, Dutka JCR, Manicardi FT, Gifalli G, Silva PP, Pegoraro-Krook MI. Influence of speech stimuli in the auditory perceptual identification of hypernasality in individuals with cleft lip and palate. CoDAS. 2020;32(6):e20190269.
10 Lee A, Potts S, Bressmann T. Speech-language therapy students’ auditoryperceptual judgements of simulated concurrent hypernasality and articulation disorders. Clin Linguist Phon. 2020;34(5):479-92.
11 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.
12 Ramos-Favaretto FS, Fukushiro AP, Scarmagnani RH, Yamashita RP. Borg scale: a new method for hypernasality rating. CoDAS. 2019;31(6):e20180296.
13 Zraick RI, Liss JM. A comparison of equal-appearing interval scaling and direct magnitude estimation of nasal voice quality. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2000;43(4):979-88.
14 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.
15 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):1-35.
16 Watterson T, Mancini M, Brancamp TU, Lewis KE. Relationship between the perception of hypernasality and social judgments in school-aged children. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2013;50(4):498-502.
17 Kappen IFPM, Bittermann D, Janssen L, Bittermann GKP, Boonacker C, Haverkamp S, et al. 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):202-9.
18 Spruijt NE, Beenakker M, Verbeek M, Heinze ZCM, Breugem CC, Mink van der Molen AB. Reliability of the dutch cleft speech evaluation test and conversion to the proposed universal scale. J Craniofac Surg. 2018;29(2):390-5.
19 Padilha EZ, Dutka JCR, Marino VCC, Lauris JRP, Silva MJF. PegoraroKrook MI. Assessment of speech nasality in individuals with cleft palate. Audiol Commun Res. 2015;20(1):48-55.
20 Lohmander A, Klintö K, Schalling E, Portela AS, Johansson K, McAllister A. Students take charge of learning – using e-learning in perceptual assessment in speech–language pathology. Scand J Educ Res. 2021;65(3):468-80.
21 Jung SE, Ha S, Koh KS, Oh TS. Clinical interventions and speech outcomes for individuals with submucous cleft palate. Arch Plast Surg. 2020;47(6):542-50.
22 Manicardi FT, Dutka JCR, Guerra TA, Pegoraro-Krook MI, Chagas EFB, Marino VCC. Effect of perceptive-auditory training on the classification of speech hypernasality. CoDAS. 2023;35(6):e20220069. PMid:37729318.
23 Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorial data. Biometrics. 1997;33(1):159-74.
24 Bettens K, Bruneel L, Maryn Y, De Bodt M, Luyten A, Van Lierde KM. Perceptual evaluation of hypernasality, audible nasal airflow and speech understandability using ordinal and visual analogue scaling and their relation with nasalance scores. J Commun Disord. 2018;76:11-20.
25 Guerra TA. Treinamento de avaliadores para identificação da hipernasalidade [tese]. Bauru: Faculdade de Odontologia de Bauru, Universidade de São Paulo; 2019.
26 Imatomi S. Effects of breathy voice source on ratings of hypernasality. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2005;42(6):641-8.
27 Stevens SS. Perceptual magnitude and its measurement. In: Carterette C, Friedman MP, editors. Handbook of perception: psychophysical judgment and measurement. New York: Academic Press; 1974. p. 22-40.
28 Bruneel L, Alighieri C, D’haeseleer E, Kissel I, Adriaansen A, Sseremba D, et al. Reliability results of perceptual ratings of resonance, nasal airflow and speech acceptability in patients with cleft palate by Ugandan speech-language pathologists following a two-day workshop. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2020;136:110191.
29 Sydney CB, Truong A, Forde C, Stefanov DG, Marrinan E. Perceptual assessment of velopharyngeal dysfunction by otolaryngology residents. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2016;155(6):1034-9.
Submitted date:
02/21/2024
Accepted date:
05/27/2024
Facebook
Google+
Twitter
LinkedIn
Mendeley
StumbleUpon
CiteULike
Reddit
Email