The Relationship between Nasalance Scores and Nasality Ratings Obtained with Equal Appearing Interval and Direct Magnitude Estimation Scaling Methods

Objectives To assess the nasalance/nasality relationship and Nasometer test sensitivity and specificity when nasality ratings are obtained with both equal appearing interval (EAI) and direct magnitude estimation (DME) scaling procedures. To test the linearity of the relationship between nasality ratings obtained from different perceptual scales. Stimuli Audio recordings of the Turtle Passage. Design Participants' nasalance scores and audio recordings were obtained simultaneously. A single judge rated the samples for nasality using both EAI and DME scaling procedures. Participants Thirty-nine participants 3 to 17 years of age. Across participants, resonance ranged from normal to severely hypernasal. Main Outcome Measures Nasalance scores and two nasality ratings. Results The magnitude of the correlation between nasalance scores and EAI ratings of nasality (r= .63) and between nasalance and DME ratings of nasality (r= .59) was not significantly different. Nasometer test sensitivity and specificity for EAI-rated nasality were .71 and .73, respectively. For DME-rated nasality, sensitivity and specificity were .62 and .70, respectively. Regression of EAI nasality ratings on DME nasality ratings did not depart significantly from linearity. Conclusions No difference was found in the relationship between nasalance and nasality when nasality was rated using EAI as opposed to DME procedures. Nasometer test sensitivity and specificity were similar for EAI-and DME-rated nasality. A linear model accounted for the greatest proportion of explained variance in EAI and DME ratings. Consequently, clinicians should be able to obtain valid and reliable estimates of nasality using EAI or DME.

[1]  R M Warren,et al.  Anomalous loudness function for speech. , 1973, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[2]  K. Lewis,et al.  Nasalance and nasality in low pressure and high pressure speech. , 1998, The Cleft palate-craniofacial journal : official publication of the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association.

[3]  H. Morris,et al.  Correspondence between Nasalance Scores and Listener Judgments of Hypernasality and Hyponasality , 1992 .

[4]  Philip C Doyle,et al.  Direct magnitude estimation and interval scaling of pleasantness and severity in dysphonic and normal speakers. , 2002, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[5]  J. Liss,et al.  A comparison of equal-appearing interval scaling and direct magnitude estimation of nasal voice quality. , 2000, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[6]  F. Emanuel,et al.  Relationship of spectral noise levels to psychophysical scaling of vowel roughness. , 1990, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[7]  Joseph Zubin,et al.  Fundamental statistics in psychology and education , 1943 .

[8]  K. Lewis,et al.  The influence of listener experience and academic training on ratings of nasality. , 2003, Journal of communication disorders.

[9]  T. Whitehill,et al.  Direct magnitude estimation and interval scaling of hypernasality. , 2002, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[10]  T. Watterson,et al.  The relationship between nasalance and nasality in children with cleft palate. , 1993, Journal of communication disorders.

[11]  T. Watterson,et al.  Novel stimuli for obtaining nasalance measures from young children. , 1996, The Cleft palate-craniofacial journal : official publication of the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association.

[12]  David J. P. Barker,et al.  Epidemiology in medical practice , 1976 .

[13]  J. Lehman,et al.  Comparison of Nasometer and listener judgments of nasality in the assessment of velopharyngeal function after pharyngeal flap surgery. , 1992, The Cleft palate-craniofacial journal : official publication of the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association.

[14]  Jacob Cohen.  A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales , 1960 .

[15]  Psychophysical analysis of audiovisual judgments of speech naturalness of nonstutterers and stutterers. , 1994, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[16]  J. R. Landis,et al.  The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. , 1977, Biometrics.

[17]  R. Dalston,et al.  Use of nasometry as a diagnostic tool for identifying patients with velopharyngeal impairment. , 1991, The Cleft palate-craniofacial journal : official publication of the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association.

[18]  H. Eisler.  HOW PROTHETIC IS THE CONTINUUM OF SMELL?: A further comment on the relation between magnitude and category scales , 1963 .

[19]  R. M. Warren,et al.  A basis for loudness-judgments. , 1958, The American journal of psychology.

[20]  R. M. Warren,et al.  A Critique of S. S. Stevens' “New Psychophysics” , 1963, Perceptual and motor skills.

[21]  S. Fletcher,et al.  “Nasalance” vs. listener judgments of nasality , 1977 .

[22]  Philip C Doyle,et al.  Direct magnitude estimation and interval scaling of naturalness and severity in tracheoesophageal (TE) speakers. , 2002, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.