We have located links that may give you full text access.
COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
MULTICENTER STUDY
RESEARCH SUPPORT, NON-U.S. GOV'T
Perceptual Judgments of Resonance, Nasal Airflow, Understandability, and Acceptability in Speakers With Cleft Palate: Ordinal Versus Visual Analogue Scaling.
Cleft Palate-craniofacial Journal 2017 January
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the reliability of ordinal versus visual analogue scaling (VAS) ratings for perceptual judgments of nasal resonance, nasal airflow, understandability, and acceptability in speakers with cleft palate.
DESIGN: Within-subjects comparative study.
SETTING: Multisite.
PARTICIPANTS: Five specialist speech and language therapists from U.K. Regional Cleft Centres.
OUTCOME MEASURES: Participants rated 30 audio speech samples obtained from the Speech and Language Therapy archives of Great Ormond Street Hospital. They rated the identified speech parameters using each scaling method, with 1 month between rating tasks. The model of best fit was determined to examine validity, and both intra- and inter-rater reliability were also computed.
RESULTS: VAS ratings were valid for all parameters when plotted against ordinal ratings, and the model of best fit revealed only a slightly stronger curvilinear than linear relationship between the scaling methods. Intra-rater reliability was high for both rating methods across all six speech parameters. There was also high inter-rater reliability for both ordinal and VAS ratings of hypernasality, nasal emission, nasal turbulence, understandability, and acceptability, and for the ordinal ratings of hyponasality.
CONCLUSIONS: Perceptual judgments of nasal resonance, nasal airflow, understandability, and acceptability were similar using VAS and ordinal scaling, indicating that both scaling methods were appropriate for measuring the cleft speech parameters. VAS, however, may offer statistical advantages, and there is a growing body of evidence advocating its use for the measurement of prothetic speech parameters.
DESIGN: Within-subjects comparative study.
SETTING: Multisite.
PARTICIPANTS: Five specialist speech and language therapists from U.K. Regional Cleft Centres.
OUTCOME MEASURES: Participants rated 30 audio speech samples obtained from the Speech and Language Therapy archives of Great Ormond Street Hospital. They rated the identified speech parameters using each scaling method, with 1 month between rating tasks. The model of best fit was determined to examine validity, and both intra- and inter-rater reliability were also computed.
RESULTS: VAS ratings were valid for all parameters when plotted against ordinal ratings, and the model of best fit revealed only a slightly stronger curvilinear than linear relationship between the scaling methods. Intra-rater reliability was high for both rating methods across all six speech parameters. There was also high inter-rater reliability for both ordinal and VAS ratings of hypernasality, nasal emission, nasal turbulence, understandability, and acceptability, and for the ordinal ratings of hyponasality.
CONCLUSIONS: Perceptual judgments of nasal resonance, nasal airflow, understandability, and acceptability were similar using VAS and ordinal scaling, indicating that both scaling methods were appropriate for measuring the cleft speech parameters. VAS, however, may offer statistical advantages, and there is a growing body of evidence advocating its use for the measurement of prothetic speech parameters.
Full text links
Trending Papers
Acute and non-acute decompensation of liver cirrhosis (47/130).Liver International : Official Journal of the International Association for the Study of the Liver 2024 March 2
Guide to Utilization of the Microbiology Laboratory for Diagnosis of Infectious Diseases: 2024 Update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and the American Society for Microbiology (ASM).Clinical Infectious Diseases 2024 March 6
Status epilepticus: what's new for the intensivist.Current Opinion in Critical Care 2024 Februrary 15
Administration of methylene blue in septic shock: pros and cons.Critical Care : the Official Journal of the Critical Care Forum 2024 Februrary 17
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app