MARATTO

article · FACE

Correlation of Velopharyngeal Score in Nasoendoscopy with Perceptual Speech Intelligibility of Patients with Cleft Palate

20241 citationUniversity of Lagos

Abstract

Background and Objective: One of the challenges patients with cleft palate face is the production of intelligible speech. Though instrumental assessment of velopharyngeal function is required, there is a need to correlate the results obtained with speech outcome. The objective of this study is to correlate the Golding-Kushner scale scoring system for velopharyngeal defects as observed on nasoendoscopy with patients’ speech intelligibility. Method: The design is an observational cross-sectional study conducted from December 2022 to May 2023. This study was carried out at the orofacial cleft clinic of a tertiary hospital. Participants: The study included English-speaking patients with cleft palate who had palatorrhaphy done at least 6 months before recruitment. Intervention: Speech intelligibility was measured using a simple analog scale that ranged from 0 to 5 (0—worst speech intelligibility possible, 5—best speech intelligibility). The Golding-Kushner scale is used to measure gap size (defect) in nasoendoscopy. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome is to correlate the score of speech intelligibility with the Golding-Kushner score during nasoendoscopy. Results: A total of 40 people participated in the study, with a median age of 11 years (IQR: 6.25-21.75 years). There is a moderately negative correlation between velopharyngeal gap size and speech intelligibility (correlation coefficient = −0.6, P < .01). Only the size of the size of the gap is a significant predictor of speech intelligibility after cleft palate repair. Conclusion: There is a significant, moderate correlation between velopharyngeal gap size and speech intelligibility.

Research topics

  • Cleft Lip and Palate Research
  • Voice and Speech Disorders
  • Phonetics and Phonology Research

Read the original research

This page summarises published work. The authoritative version sits with the publisher.

DOI: 10.1177/27325016241274965

Is something wrong with this record? Report it or request removal.

Discussion

Discuss this research

Have you built on this work, tried to replicate it, or seen it applied in practice? Share what you know. Verified researchers and MARATTO™ domain experts can open a discussion, and any member can reply. Contributions are reviewed before they appear.

No discussion yet. Open the first thread.