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
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment.Clinical Research in Cardiology : Official Journal of the German Cardiac Society 2024 April 12
Proximal versus distal diuretics in congestive heart failure.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2024 Februrary 30
Efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy in chronic insomnia: A review of clinical guidelines and case reports.Mental Health Clinician 2023 October
World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management.American Journal of Hematology 2024 March 30
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