The Cleft palate-craniofacial journal : official publication of the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association · 1998
Nasalance and nasality in low pressure and high pressure speech.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Watterson T, Lewis K E, Deutsch C
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: This study compared nasalance measures and nasality ratings in low pressure (LP) and high pressure (HP) speech.
SUBJECTS: The subjects for this study were 25 children ranging in age from 5 to 13 years. Twenty of the subjects were patients followed by a craniofacial team, and five had no history of communication disorder.
RESULTS: The mean nasalance for the LP speech was 29.98% (SD, 16.16), and the mean nasalance for the HP speech was 30.28% (SD, 15.35). The mean nasality rating for the LP speech was 2.31, and the mean nasality rating for the HP speech was 2.59. Separate paired t tests revealed no significant difference between the LP or the HP speech for either the nasalance scores or the nasality ratings. The correlation coefficient between nasalance and nasality for the LP speech was r = 0.78, and for the HP speech r = 0.77. Using a cutoff of 26% for nasalance and 2.0 for nasality, Nasometer test sensitivity was 0.84 and test specificity was 0.88.
CONCLUSIONS: In general, clinicians may obtain valid measures of nasalance and/or ratings of nasality using either an LP stimulus or an HP stimulus. Sensitivity and specificity scores indicated that the Nasometer was reasonably accurate in distinguishing between normal and hypernasal speech samples.
SUBJECTS: The subjects for this study were 25 children ranging in age from 5 to 13 years. Twenty of the subjects were patients followed by a craniofacial team, and five had no history of communication disorder.
RESULTS: The mean nasalance for the LP speech was 29.98% (SD, 16.16), and the mean nasalance for the HP speech was 30.28% (SD, 15.35). The mean nasality rating for the LP speech was 2.31, and the mean nasality rating for the HP speech was 2.59. Separate paired t tests revealed no significant difference between the LP or the HP speech for either the nasalance scores or the nasality ratings. The correlation coefficient between nasalance and nasality for the LP speech was r = 0.78, and for the HP speech r = 0.77. Using a cutoff of 26% for nasalance and 2.0 for nasality, Nasometer test sensitivity was 0.84 and test specificity was 0.88.
CONCLUSIONS: In general, clinicians may obtain valid measures of nasalance and/or ratings of nasality using either an LP stimulus or an HP stimulus. Sensitivity and specificity scores indicated that the Nasometer was reasonably accurate in distinguishing between normal and hypernasal speech samples.