Background:To determine best practices, surgeons who perform cleft palate surgery or surgery for velopharyngeal insufficiency need to be able to compare their outcomes in normalizing the velopharyngeal valve.Methods:We conducted a comprehensive review of articles that reported speech/resonance outcomes following palatoplasty or surgery for velopharyngeal insufficiency. We analyzed protocols that were used and how the results were reported. We found 170 articles, published between 1990 and 2014, that met our inclusion criteria.Results:Most studies (66%) had a sample size of <50 subjects, were retrospective (67%), were not blinded (83%), and did not report the use of reliability (68%). Most studies included 1 evaluator (27%) or 2 evaluators (30%). Only 80% of the articles specified that at least one speech pathologist was an evaluator. Most articles (56%) did not specify the speech samples used, and 65% used an informal test or did not specify the type of test used. Most studies used a perceptual rating scale for articulation (75%) and resonance (83%). Only 39% of the studies included an evaluation of velopharyngeal function. Finally, objective measures were used in only 28% of the studies (9% used aerodynamic measures and 19% used nasometry).Conclusions:Because these articles showed significant variability in how speech/resonance is evaluated and how the outcomes are reported, it is virtually impossible to compare results to determine best surgical procedures. Suggestions are given to standardize outcome measures to improve comparability of data.
<b><i>Purpose:</i></b> The purpose of this study was to investigate the clinical application of the Intelligibility in Context Scale (ICS) instrument in children with velopharyngeal insufficiency (VPI). This study investigated the relationship between clinical speech outcomes and parental reports of speech intelligibility across various communicative partners. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> The ICS was completed by the parents of 20 English-speaking children aged 4–12 years diagnosed with VPI. The parents were asked to rate their children’s speech intelligibility across communication partners using a 5-point scale. Clinical metrics obtained using standard clinical transcription on the Picture-Cued SNAP-R Test were: (1) percentage of consonants correct (PCC), (2) percentage of vowels correct (PVC), and (3) percentage of phonemes correct (PPC). Nasalance from nasometer data was included as an indirect measure of nasality. Intelligibility scores obtained from naive listener’s transcriptions and speech-language pathologists’ (SLP) ratings were compared with the ICS results. <b><i>Result:</i></b> Greater PCC, PPC, PVC, and transcription-based intelligibility values were significantly associated with higher ICS values, respectively (<i>r</i>[20] = 0.84, 0.82, 0.51, and 0.70, respectively; <i>p</i> < 0.05 in all cases). There was a negative and significant correlation between ICS mean scores and SLP ratings of intelligibility (<i>r</i> = –0.74; <i>p</i> < 0.001). There was no significant correlation between ICS values and nasalance scores (<i>r</i>[20] = –0.28; <i>p</i> = 0.22). <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> The high correlations obtained between the ICS with PCC and PPC measures indicate that articulation accuracy has had a great impact on parents’ decision-making regarding intelligibility in this population. Significant agreement among ICS scores with naive listener transcriptions and clinical ratings supports use of the ICS in practice.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.