CoDAS
http://www.codas.periodikos.com.br/article/doipath/10.1590/2317-1782/20192018296
CoDAS
Artigo Original

Borg scale: a new method for hypernasality rating

Escala de Borg: um novo método para avaliação da hipernasalidade de fala

Francine Santos Ramos-Favaretto; Ana Paula Fukushiro; Rafaeli Higa Scarmagnani; Renata Paciello Yamashita

Downloads: 0
Views: 72

Abstract

Purpose: To investigate the reliability in auditory-perceptual assessment of hypernasality of the Borg centiMax scale and the influence of the speech material on the reliability of two scales. Methods: Four experienced speech-language pathologists rated hypernasality of 80 audio recordings of patients with repaired cleft palate (40 single-word string and 40 sentences) using the 5-point ordinal scale and the Borg centiMax scale. Intra and inter-rater reliability were calculated for both scales and for both types of speech samples. The comparison between the agreement coefficients of the two speech samples was calculated using the Z test and between the scales was calculated by Spearman correlation coefficient, considering as significant p<0.05. Results: A very high and statistically significant correlation was found between the Borg centiMax scale and the ordinal scale for both speech samples. Intra- and inter-rater reliability was higher for Borg scale as compared to ordinal scale. Good to excellent intra-rater reliability was found for Borg scale for both speech samples. Poor to excellent intra-rater reliability was found for ordinal scale for both stimuli. Higher inter-rater reliability was demonstrated for Borg scale than ordinal scale for both speech samples. There was a significant difference between the single words string and sentences for intra- and inter-rater reliability using Borg scale, and for inter-rater reliability using ordinal scale. Conclusion: The Borg centiMax scale showed better intra and inter-rater reliability. Additionally, the speech material comprising of single words string showed better reliability in most of the comparisons for both scales.

Keywords

Velopharyngeal Insufficiency; Cleft Palate; Speech Disorders; Speech Perception; Speech

Resumo

Objetivo: Investigar a confiabilidade da escala Borg centiMax como método de avaliação perceptivo-auditiva da hipernasalidade e a influência do tipo de amostra de fala sobre a confiabilidade das avaliações. Método: Quatro fonoaudiólogas experientes classificaram a hipernasalidade de 80 amostras de fala de pacientes com fissura de palato reparada (40 vocábulos e 40 sentenças) utilizando a escala ordinal de 5 pontos e a escala Borg centiMax. Os índices de concordância intra e interavaliadores foram estabelecidos para ambas as escalas e amostras. A comparação desses índices foi feita pelo teste Z e a comparação entre as escalas foi feita pelo coeficiente de correlação de Spearman (p<0,05). Resultados: Verificou-se correlação muito alta e significante entre a Escala Borg centiMax e a escala ordinal, para ambas as amostras. Os índices de concordância intra-avaliadores (CCI) para a escala Borg centiMax variaram de excelente a bom e, para a escala ordinal (Kappa), de excelente a pobre, em ambas as amostras. A concordância interavaliadores (CCI) para a escala Borg centiMax variou de excelente a moderada e, para a escala ordinal (Kappa), variou de moderada a pobre, para vocábulos e sentenças. Diferença estatisticamente significante, com melhores índices de concordância intra e interavaliadores para vocábulos, foi obtida com a escala Borg centiMax. Para a escala ordinal, diferença significante entre vocábulos e sentenças foi observada apenas para a comparação interavaliador. Conclusão: A escala Borg centiMax apresentou melhores índices de concordância intra e interavaliadores. A amostra contendo vocábulos mostrou melhores índices de concordância na maioria das comparações, para ambas as escalas.

Palavras-chave

Insuficiência Velofaríngea; Fissura Palatina; Distúrbios da Fala; Percepção da Fala; Fala

Referências

1 Kent RD. Hearing and believing: some limits to the auditory-perceptual assessment of speech and voice disorders. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 1996;5(3):7-23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1044/1058-0360.0503.07. [ Links ]

2 Baylis AL, Chapman KL, Whitehill TL. Validity and reliability of visual analog scaling for assessment of hipernasality and audible nasal emission in children with repaired cleft palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2015;52(6):660-70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1597/14-040. PMid:25322442. [ Links ]

3 Lohmander A, Persson C, Willadsen E, Lundeborg I, Alaluusua S, Aukner R, et al. Scandcleft randomised trials of primary surgery for unilateral cleft lip and palate: 4. speech outcomes in 5-year-olds - velopharyngeal competency and hypernasality. J Plast Surg Hand Surg. 2017;51(1):27-37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/2000656X.2016.1254645. PMid:28218551. [ Links ]

4 Watterson T, Lewis K, Allord M, Sulprizio S, O’Neill P. Effect of vowel type on reliability of nasality ratings. J Commun Disord. 2007;40(6):503-12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcomdis.2007.02.002. PMid:17391692. [ Links ]

5 Stevens SS. Psychophysics: introduction to its perceptual, neural and social prospects. New York: Wiley; 1975. [ Links ]

6 Yamashita RP, Borg E, Granqvist S, Lohmander A. Reliability of hipernasality rating: comparison of three different methods for perceptual assessment. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2018;55(8):1060-71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1055665618767116. PMid:29634363. [ Links ]

7 Castick S, Knight RA, Sell D. Perceptual judgments of resonance, nasal airflow, understandability, and acceptability in speakers with cleft palate: ordinal versus visual analogue scaling. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2017;54(1):19-31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1597/15-164. PMid:28067575. [ Links ]

8 Whitehill TL, Lee AS, Chun JC. Direct magnitude estimation and Interval scaling of hypernasality. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2002;45(1):80-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2002/006). PMid:14748640. [ Links ]

9 Brancamp TU, Lewis KE, Watterson T. The relationship between nasalance scores and nasality ratings obtained with equal appearing interval and direct magnitude estimation scaling methods. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2010;47(6):631-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1597/09-106. PMid:20500059. [ Links ]

10 Medeiros MNL, Fukushiro AP, Yamashita RP. Influência da amostra de fala na classificação perceptiva da hipernasalidade. CoDAS. 2016;28(3):289-94. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/2317-1782/20162015202. [ Links ]

11 Oliveira ACASF, Scarmagnani RH, Fukushiro AP, Yamashita RP. Influência do treinamento dos avaliadores no julgamento perceptivo da hipernasalidade. CoDAS. 2016;28(2):141-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/2317-1782/20162015163. PMid:27191877. [ Links ]

12 Borg G, Borg E. A new generation of scaling methods: level-anchored ratio scaling. Psychologica. 2001;28:15-45. [ Links ]

13 Borg E. On perceived exertion and its measurement [dissertation]. Stockholm: Stockholm University; 2007. [ Links ]

14 Griep MI, Borg E, Collys K, Massart DL. Category ratio scales as an alternative to magnitude matching for age-related taste and odour perception. Food Qual Prefer. 1998;9(1-2):67-72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0950-3293(97)00030-X. [ Links ]

15 Karavatas SG, Tavakol K. Concurrent validity of Borg’s rating of perceived exertion in african-american young adults, employing heart rate as the standard. Internet J Allied Health Sci Pract. 2005;3(1):1-5. [ Links ]

16 Gerlach Y, Williams MT, Coates AM. Weighing up the evidence-a systematic review of measures used for the sensation of breathlessness in obesity. Int J Obes. 2013;37(3):341-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ijo.2012.49. PMid:22531088. [ Links ]

17 Van Leer E, van Mersbergen M. Using the Borg CR10 physical exertion scale to measure patient-perceived vocal effort pre and post treatment. J Voice. 2017;31(3):389.e19-25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2016.09.023. PMid:27887811. [ Links ]

18 Cicchetti DV. Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. Psychol Assess. 1994;6(4):284-90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.6.4.284. [ Links ]

19 Mukaka MM. Statistics corner: a guide to appropriate use of correlation coefficient in medical research. Malawi Med J. 2012;24(3):69-71. PMid:23638278. [ Links ]

20 Brunnegård K, Lohmander A, van Doorn J. Comparison between perceptual assessments of nasality and nasalance scores. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2012;47(5):556-66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-6984.2012.00165.x. PMid:22938066. [ Links ]

21 Brandão GR, Freitas JAS, Genaro KF, Yamashita RP, Fukushiro AP, Lauris JR. Speech outcomes and velopharyngeal function after surgical treatment of velopharyngeal insufficiency in individuals with signs of velocardiofacial syndrome. J Craniofac Surg. 2011;22(5):1736-42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0b013e31822e624f. PMid:21959422. [ Links ]

22 Scarmagnani RH, Barbosa DA, Fukushiro AP, Salgado MH, Trindade IEK, Yamashita RP. Correlação entre o fechamento velofaríngeo, hipernasalidade, emissão de ar nasal e ronco nasal em indivíduos com fissura de palato reparada. CoDAS. 2015;27(3):267-72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/2317-1782/20152014145. PMid:26222944. [ Links ]

23 Ferlin F, Yamashita RP, Fukushiro AP. Influência das consoantes de alta e baixa pressão intraoral sobre a nasalidade e nasalância da fala em pacientes com fissura de palato reparada. Audiol Commun Res. 2017;22(0):e1851. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/2317-6431-2017-1851. [ Links ]

24 Lee A, Whitehill TL, Ciocca V. Effect of listener training on perceptual judgment of hypernasality. Clin Linguist Phon. 2009;23(5):319-34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02699200802688596. PMid:19399664. [ Links ]

25 Eadie TL, Kapsner-Smith M. The effect of listener experience and anchors on judgments of dysphonia. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2011;54(2):430-47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2010/09-0205). PMid:20884782. [ Links ]

26 Dotevall H, Lohmander-Agerskov A, Ejnell H, Bake B. Perceptual evaluation of speech and velopharyngeal function in children with and without cleft palate and the relationship to nasal airflow patterns. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2002;39(4):409-24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1597/1545-1569_2002_039_0409_peosav_2.0.co_2. PMid:12071789. [ Links ]

27 Persson C, Lohmander A, Elander A. Speech in children with an isolated cleft palate: a longitudinal perspective. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2006;43(3):295-309. http://dx.doi.org/10.1597/04-071.1. PMid:16681402. [ Links ]

28 Brunnegård K, Lohmander A. A cross-sectional study of speech in 10-year-old children with cleft palate: results and issues of rater reliability. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2007;44(1):33-44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1597/05-164. PMid:17214536. [ Links ]

29 Lohmander A, Willadsen E, Persson C, Henningsson G, Bowden M, Hutters B. Methodology for speech assessment in the Scandcleft project--an internacional randomized clinical trial on palatal surgery: experiences from a pilot study. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2009;46(4):347-62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1597/08-039.1. PMid:19642772. [ Links ]

30 Henningsson G, Kuehn DP, Sell D, Sweeney T, Trost-Cardamone JE, Whitehill TL. Universal parameters for reporting speech outcomes in individuals with cleft palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2008;45(1):1-17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1597/06-086.1. PMid:18215095. [ Links ]


Submetido em:
05/12/2018

Aceito em:
09/04/2019

5deea4d60e88258958b5f733 codas Articles

CoDAS

Share this page
Page Sections