Search

Background: Speech in individuals with cleft lip and/or palate (CLP) is a complex myriad of presenting symptoms. It is uniquely associated with the structural difference of velopharyngeal insufficiency (VPI), together with a wide and heterogeneous range of other aetiologies which often co-occur. The nature of the speech sound disorder (SSD) including VPI may also change over the course of an individual's care pathway. Differences in terminology and approaches to analysis are currently used, resulting in confusion internationally. Additionally, current diagnostic labels and classification systems in SSD do not capture the complexity and full nature of speech characteristics in CLP., Aims: This paper aims to explore the different aetiologies of cleft palate/VPI speech and to relate aetiology with speech characteristic(s). In so doing, it attempts to unravel the different terminology used in the field, describing commonalities and differences, and identifying overlaps with the speech summary patterns used in the United Kingdom and elsewhere. The paper also aims to explore the applicability of current diagnostic labels and classification systems in the non-cleft SSD literature and illustrate certain implications for speech intervention in CLP., Methods and Procedures: The different aetiologies were identified from the literature and mapped onto cleft palate/VPI speech characteristics. Different terminology and approaches to analysis are defined and overlaps described. The applicability of current classification systems in SSD is discussed including additional diagnostic labels proposed in the field., Outcomes and Results: Aetiologies of cleft palate/VPI speech identified include developmental (cognitive-linguistic), middle ear disease and fluctuating hearing loss, altered oral structure, abnormal facial growth, VPI-structural (abnormal palate muscle) and VPI-iatrogenic (maxillary advancement surgery). There are four main terminologies used to describe cleft palate/VPI speech: active/passive and compensatory/obligatory, which overlap with the four categories used in the UK speech summary patterns: anterior oral cleft speech characteristics (CSCs), posterior oral CSCs, non-oral CSCs and passive CSCs, although not directly comparable. Current classification systems in non-cleft SSD do not sufficiently capture the full nature and complexity of cleft palate/VPI speech., Conclusions and Implications: Our attempt at identifying the heterogeneous range of aetiologies provides clinicians with a better understanding of cleft palate/VPI speech to inform the management pathway and the nature and type of speech intervention required. We hope that the unravelling of the different terminology in relation to the UK speech summary patterns, and those used elsewhere, reduces confusion and provides more clarity for clinicians in the field. Diagnostic labels and classification require international agreement., What This Paper Adds: What is already known on the subject Speech associated with cleft palate/velopharyngeal insufficiency (VPI) is a complex myriad of speech characteristics with a wide and heterogeneous range of aetiologies. Different terminology and speech summary patterns are used to describe the speech characteristics. The traditional classification of cleft palate/VPI speech is Articulation Disorder, although evidence is building for Phonological Disorder and contrastive approaches in cleft speech intervention. What this paper adds to existing knowledge This paper explores the range of aetiologies of cleft palate/VPI speech (e.g., altered oral structure, abnormal facial growth, abnormal palate muscle and iatrogenic aetiologies) and attempts to relate aetiology with speech characteristic(s). An attempt is made at unravelling the different terminology used in relation to a well-known and validated approach to analysis, used in the United Kingdom and elsewhere. Complexities of current diagnostic labels and classifications in Speech Sound Disorder to describe cleft palate/VPI speech are discussed. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work? There needs to be a common language for describing and summarising cleft palate/VPI speech. Speech summary patterns based on narrow phonetic transcription and correct identification of aetiology are essential for the accurate classification of the speech disorder and identification of speech intervention approaches. There is an urgent need for research to identify the most appropriate type of contrastive (phonological) approach in cleft lip and/or palate., (© 2023 The Authors. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists.)

Background: The status of the velopharyngeal mechanism can be inferred from perceptual ratings of specified speech parameters. Several studies have proposed the measure of an overall velopharyngeal composite score based on these perceptual ratings and have reported good validity. The Cleft Audit Protocol for Speech-Augmented (CAPS-A) is a validated and reliable perceptual framework for the assessment of cleft speech and velopharyngeal function used by all Regional Cleft Services in the UK and Ireland. An overall velopharyngeal composite summary score based on the CAPS-A would serve as an important surgical outcome measure of speech., Aims: To develop and validate a velopharyngeal composite summary score based on perceptual ratings made on the CAPS-A (CAPS-A VPC-Sum) using data from a maxillary osteotomy (MO) study., Methods & Procedures: There were two surgical groups: a cleft lip and palate (CLP) (N = 20) group and a non-CLP group (N = 10), and a normal control group (N = 20). Participants in groups 1 and 2 were seen for perceptual and instrumental assessments of speech and velopharyngeal function preoperatively (T1), 3 months (T2) and 12 months (T3) postoperatively. Perceptual speech data were collected and rated by independent listeners using CAPS-A., Outcomes & Results: Moderate to strong interrater reliability for perceptual data (r s = 0.503-1.000, all p < 0.01) and strong to very strong reliability for videofluoroscopic measurements (r s = 0.746-0.947) were found. Construct validity of the CAPS-A VPC-Sum was shown by an increase in postoperative scores for the CLP group only ϰ 2 (2) = 9.769, p = 0.008 and significant differences between the CLP and the other two groups at T2 and T3 using independent t-tests. Convergent and divergent validity was indicated by a positive moderate correlation with related parameters (e.g., hypernasality r s = 0.869, p < 0.01) and a weak correlation with unrelated parameters (e.g., amount of forward advancement r s = 0.160, p = 0.526). Criterion validity was found by a moderate correlation between closure ratio r s = -0.541, p = 0.020 and CAPS-A VPC-Sum., Conclusions & Implications: A velopharyngeal composite score based on perceptually rated parameters serves as an important surgical speech outcome measure. The CAPS-A VPC-Sum is a useful, reliable and valid outcome measure of velopharyngeal function. There are added positive implications for other clinicians using geographically and language-specific adapted versions of the CAPS-A internationally., What This Paper Adds: What is already known on this subject Velopharyngeal composite scores based on perceptually rated speech parameters have been shown to have both clinical and research utility, serving as a useful surgical outcome measure. However, such a composite score must be specifically validated on the perceptual speech framework upon which it is based, as there are differences in measurement methods and terminology across cleft speech perceptual frameworks internationally. What this paper adds to existing knowledge The CAPS-A is a nationally used tool in the UK and Ireland for audit and research purposes with validated and adapted international versions. This paper reports on the validation of the derived velopharyngeal composite score measure based on the CAPS-A and an English-speaking sample, providing evidence of its validity through a speech osteotomy study. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work? This work provides CLP teams who use CAPS-A with a validated surgical speech outcome measure of velopharyngeal function. It has positive implications also for adapted versions of the CAPS-A internationally., (© 2021 Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists.)

Background: A total of 68% of pre-school children with cleft palate have speech problems requiring speech therapy. There is a lack of access to regular targeted therapy. Parent training leads to positive outcomes in early communication skills in cleft palate and non-cleft speech disorders. Connected health has been used to address inadequate access to therapy, providing intervention to those who would not otherwise receive therapy., Aims: To evaluate the speech, activity and participation outcomes of Parent Led, Therapist Supervised, Articulation Therapy (PLAT) compared with routine speech therapy intervention in parent-child dyads., Methods & Procedures: A total of 44 children, aged 2.9-7.5 years, were included in a two-centre, two-phase randomized controlled trial. Informed consent and assent were obtained. Participants and speech and language therapists (SLTs) were unblinded to the groups. Parents, in the parent-trained group (n = 23), attended 2 days' training, received a detailed speech therapy programme, and undertook intervention over 12 weeks supported by the cleft specialist SLT using FaceTime and one face-to-face session. In the control arm (n = 21), parent-child dyads received six therapy sessions over 12 weeks with a research SLT, comparable with usual care. Speech recordings were undertaken pre- and post-intervention. Percent consonant correct (PCC) was analysed by external SLTs blinded to the time and group. Activity and participation were measured using the Intelligibility in Context Scale (ICS) and Focus on Outcomes for Children Under Six (FOCUS) questionnaire., Outcomes & Results: There was no evidence of an interaction between Time and Group or an overall statistical difference between groups for PCC scores. There was a statistically significant difference over time for both groups (words: p < 0.002; confidence interval (CI) = 9.38-16.27; d = 0.57; sentences: p < 0.002; CI = 16.04-25.97; d = 0.23). Effect sizes were medium for words and small for sentences. For intelligibility and participation, there was no evidence of an interaction between Time and Group or an overall statistical difference between groups. A statistically significant difference over time was found for intelligibility (F = 29.97, d.f. = 1, 42, p < 0.001, 95 % CI = 1.45-3.15 d = 0.46) and for participation (F = 14.19, d.f. = 1, 41, p < 0.001 95% CI = 7.63-25.03; d = 0.36) with FOCUS results indicating clinically meaningful (parent-led group) and significant (control group) change in participation., Conclusions & Implications: PLAT can be as effective as routine care in changing speech, activity and participation outcomes for children with cleft palate, when supported by a specialist cleft SLT using connected health. What this paper adds What is already known on this subject Over 50% of children with cleft palate require speech therapy. However, there is a lack of timely, accessible speech therapy services in the UK and Ireland. Previous studies have shown that parents can deliver therapy effectively, and that connected health can support the delivery of speech therapy. This study aims to provide evidence that parent-led therapy with the supervision of a specialist cleft therapist using FaceTime is effective. What this paper adds to existing knowledge This randomized controlled trial indicates that parents can be trained to deliver therapy for children with cleft palate speech disorders, under the supervision of an SLT. This approach results in improved speech, activity and participation outcomes similar to routine care. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work? This study indicates that both parent-led articulation therapy and routine care showed meaningful gains in speech, activity and participation, and that parent-led articulation therapy when supported by a cleft SLT using connected health could be an additional service delivery model for children with cleft palate speech disorders., (© 2020 Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists.)

Background: There is no consensus in the UK regarding the types of speech samples or parameters of speech that should be assessed at 3 years of age in children with cleft palate ± cleft lip (CP±L), despite cleft units routinely assessing speech at this age. The standardization of assessment practices would facilitate comparisons of outcomes across UK cleft units; earlier identification of speech impairments-which could support more timely treatments; and more reliable recording of therapy impacts and surgical interventions., Aims: To explore assessment practices used to assess speech in 3-year-old children with CP±L, including speech parameters, methods of assessment and the nature of the speech sample used., Methods & Procedures: A broad examination of the literature was undertaken through the use of a scoping review conducted in accordance with Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines. Search terms were generated from a preliminary search and then used in the main search (Medline, CINAHL, Embase, AMED and PsycINFO)., Main Contribution: A combination of approaches (medical, linguistic, developmental and functional) is required to assess CP±L speech at age 3. A developmental approach is recommended at this age, considering the complexity of speech profiles at age 3, in which typically developing speech processes may occur alongside cleft speech characteristics. A combined measure for both nasal emission and turbulence, and an overall measure for velopharyngeal function for speech, show potential for assessment at this age. Categorical ordinal scales are frequently used; the use of continuous scales has yet to be fully explored at age 3. Although single-word assessments, including a subset of words developed for cross-linguistic comparisons, are frequently used, more than one type of speech sample may be needed to assess speech at this age validly. The lack of consensus regarding speech samples highlights a need for further research into the types of speech samples 3-year-olds can complete; the impact of incomplete speech samples on outcome measures (particularly relevant at this age when children may be less able to complete a full sample); the impact of different speech samples on the validity of assessments; and the reliability of listener judgements., Conclusions & Implications: Whilst a medical model and linguistic approaches are often central in assessments of age-3 cleft speech, this review highlights the importance of developmental and functional approaches to assessment. Cross-linguistic single-word assessments show potential, and would facilitate the comparison of UK speech outcomes with other countries. Further research should explore the impact of different speech samples and rating scales on assessment validity and listener reliability., (© 2020 Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists.)

Background: Abnormal facial growth is a well-known sequelae of cleft lip and palate (CLP) resulting in maxillary retrusion and a class III malocclusion. In 10-50% of cases, surgical correction involving advancement of the maxilla typically by osteotomy methods is required and normally undertaken in adolescence when facial growth is complete. Current evidence for the impact of the surgery on velopharyngeal function is weak and mixed., Aims: The first objective of the study was to investigate the nature of the effect of maxillary osteotomy on the perceptual outcomes of velopharyngeal function in CLP. The second objective was to establish if speech changes seen early at 3 months post-operation persisted for a year after/following surgery', when it is considered that the maxilla is relatively stable., Methods & Procedures: Twenty consecutive patients with CLP undergoing maxillary osteotomy by a single surgeon were seen pre-operatively (T1), 3 months (T2) and 12 months (T3) post-operation. A non-cleft control group (NonCLP) undergoing surgery was also recruited. Speech data were collected using the Cleft Audit Protocol for Speech-Augmented (CAPS-A). A velopharyngeal composite score-summary (VPC-SUM) was derived from specific CAPS-A-rated parameters. An external CAPS-A-trained therapist, blinded to the study, rated the randomized samples and inter-rater reliability was established., Outcomes & Results: For the CLP group, hypernasality and nasal turbulence increased significantly post-operation. Planned comparisons were significant for T1-T2 only with a medium effect size. For hypernasality, the CLP group differed statistically from the NonCLP group at T2 and T3. For nasal turbulence, the CLP group differed statistically from the NonCLP group at T2. For VPC-SUM, there were statistically significant changes post-operatively between T1-T2 and T1-T3 only with medium effect sizes for the CLP group only., Conclusions & Implications: This study provides evidence that maxillary osteotomy affects patients with and without CLP differently. In patients with CLP, surgery may impact negatively on velopharyngeal function for speech and changes seen early on at 3 months post-operatively appear to persist at 12 months postoperatively. The findings in this study have implications for the speech care pathway of patients with CLP undergoing maxillary osteotomy in terms of assessment, review and management., (© 2013 Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists.)

Background: Nasometry has supplemented perceptual assessments of nasality, using speech stimuli, which are devoid of nasal consonants. However, such speech stimuli are not representative of conversational speech. A weak relationship has been found in previous studies between perceptual ratings of hypernasality and nasalance scores for passages containing nasal consonants., Aims: This study aimed to evaluate the relationship between perceptual assessment and acoustic measurements of nasality using controlled speech stimuli., Methods & Procedure: A perceptual scale (the Temple Street Scale) describing nasality was devised for this study. Fifty children presenting with nasality were assessed using the Temple Street Scale and nasalance scores were obtained for specified speech samples using the Nasometer (Kay Elemetrics 6200.3). The relationship between the perceptual ratings and the nasometry results was evaluated using correlation analysis, test sensitivity, specificity, and overall efficiency., Outcomes & Results: Correlation coefficients for perceptual ratings of nasality and nasalance scores ranged from 0.69 to 0.74. The sensitivity of the Nasometer ranged from 0.83 to 0.88; its specificity ranged from 0.78 to 0.95; while its overall efficiency was between 0.82 and 0.92., Conclusions: The strong relationship between perceptual and acoustic assessments of nasality indicated that the Temple Street Scale and the Nasometer are both valid clinical tools for the evaluation of nasality when a carefully constructed speech sample is used. The need to use the Nasometer as a supplement to perceptual assessment is highlighted.

Background: A prosthetic approach to velopharyngeal dysfunction (VPD) is not new. However, a collaborative interdisciplinary team approach by a speech-and-language therapist, dental specialist and maxillofacial technician, including accurate fitting using nasendoscopy, has provided an opportunity to define the clinical care pathway, and audit the outcomes of this intervention. Systematic outcome studies of the effectiveness of prosthetic appliances are few and largely anecdotal., Aims: The aim is twofold: first, to provide a description of the process including diagnosis, clinical and technical fabrication; and second, to determine the effectiveness of this intervention with nasendoscopy, objective blind perceptual analysis of speech data and nasometry., Methods & Procedures: The selection criteria, age, aetiology and process of fabrication are described. Thirty-one patients embarked on the programme, but seven patients after initial failure or refusal were re-entered into the programme for a second time resulting in 38 interventions. At the time of audit, 20 patients had completed the treatment, but four of these were inadequately documented. This study reports on the 16 patients who successfully completed the programme and who had comprehensive records., Outcomes & Results: Significant differences were found between the pre- and post-treatment evaluations on the speech parameters of hypernasality, audible nasal emission and nasometry., Conclusions: In our centre surgery is the first choice of treatment for VPD, but prosthetic management can be a useful alternative when this is contraindicated, can be a useful temporary solution and can be used to evaluate the potential benefits of surgical intervention in some cases. This treatment requires the combined expertise of an interdisciplinary team involving the speech-and-language therapist, orthodontist/prosthodontist, maxillofacial technician and endoscopist.

Background: Perceptual speech assessment is central to the evaluation of speech outcomes associated with cleft palate and velopharyngeal dysfunction. However, the complexity of this process is perhaps sometimes underestimated., Aims: To draw together the many different strands in the complex process of perceptual speech assessment and analysis, and make recommendations for practice., Main Contribution: This review examines issues such as data sampling, data collection/recording, archiving, the advantages and disadvantages of lay and specialist listeners, approaches to data analysis, reliability, and data interpretation., Conclusions: The need to capture meaningfully the sound of speech based on detailed phonetic analysis is argued. Also described are some of the differences in measuring speech for clinical, audit and research activities. Blind independent analysis of speech data by specialist therapists is recommended as the gold standard methodological approach when reporting audit and research outcomes. The requirement for ongoing training in listening skills for specialist therapists is advocated. The limitations of an impairment-based-only approach to measurement are also illustrated, indicating the need to develop outcome measures that incorporate more functional issues that affect quality of life.