Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Reliability of Hypernasality Rating: Comparison of 3 Different Methods for Perceptual Assessment
Univ Sao Paulo, Hosp Rehabil Craniofacial Anomalies, Lab Physiol, Rua Silvio Marchione 3-20, BR-17012900 Sao Paulo, Brazil..
Stockholm Univ, Dept Psychol, Stockholm, Sweden..
KTH, School of Engineering Sciences in Chemistry, Biotechnology and Health (CBH), Biomedical Engineering and Health Systems. Karolinska Inst, Royal Inst Technol, Div Speech & Language Pathol, Stockholm, Sweden..
Karolinska Univ Hosp, Karolinska Inst, Div Speech & Language Pathol, Stockholm, Sweden..
2018 (English)In: The Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal, ISSN 1055-6656, E-ISSN 1545-1569, Vol. 55, no 8, p. 1060-1071Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Objective: To compare reliability in auditory-perceptual assessment of hypernasality for 3 different methods and to explore the influence of language background. Design: Comparative methodological study. Participants and Materials: Audio recordings of 5-year-old Swedish-speaking children with repaired cleft lip and palate consisting of 73 stimuli of 9 nonnasal single-word strings in 3 different randomized orders. Four experienced speech-language pathologists (2 native speakers of Brazilian-Portuguese and 2 native speakers of Swedish) participated as listeners. After individual training, each listener performed the hypernasality rating task. Each order of stimuli was analyzed individually using the 2-step, VISOR and Borg centiMax scale methods. Main Outcome Measures: Comparison of intra- and inter-rater reliability, and consistency for each method within language of the listener and between listener languages (Swedish and Brazilian-Portuguese). Results: Good to excellent intra-rater reliability was found within each listener for all methods, 2-step:kappa = 0.59-0.93; VISOR: intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) = 0.80-0.99; Borg centiMax (cM) scale: ICC = 0.80-1.00. The highest inter-rater reliability was demonstrated for VISOR (ICC = 0.60-0.90) and Borg cM-scale (ICC = 0.40-0.80). High consistency within each method was found with the highest for the Borg cM scale (ICC = 0.89-0.91). There was a significant difference in the ratings between the Swedish and the Brazilian listeners for all methods. Conclusions: The category-ratio scale Borg cM was considered most reliable in the assessment of hypernasality. Language background of Brazilian-Portuguese listeners influenced the perceptual ratings of hypernasality in Swedish speech samples, despite their experience in perceptual assessment of cleft palate speech disorders.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
ALLIANCE COMMUNICATIONS GROUP DIVISION ALLEN PRESS , 2018. Vol. 55, no 8, p. 1060-1071
Keywords [en]
cleft palate, reliability, hypernasality, perceptual speech assessment, validity
National Category
Health Sciences
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-235595DOI: 10.1177/1055665618767116ISI: 000445004200003PubMedID: 29634363Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-85055543140OAI: oai:DiVA.org:kth-235595DiVA, id: diva2:1252186
Note

QC 20181001

Available from: 2018-10-01 Created: 2018-10-01 Last updated: 2020-03-09Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMedScopus

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Granqvist, Svante
By organisation
Biomedical Engineering and Health Systems
In the same journal
The Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal
Health Sciences

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 19 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf