The purpose of this study is to describe the speech characteristics in an English-speaking Ugandan boy of 4.5 years who has a rare paramedian craniofacial cleft (unilateral lip, alveolar, palatal, nasal and maxillary cleft, and associated hypertelorism). Closure of the lip together with the closure of the hard and soft palate (one-stage palatal closure) was performed at the age of 5 months. Objective as well as subjective speech assessment techniques were used. The speech samples were perceptually judged for articulation, intelligibility and nasality. The Nasometer was used for the objective measurement of the nasalance values. The most striking communication problems in this child with the rare craniofacial cleft are an incomplete phonetic inventory, a severely impaired speech intelligibility with the presence of very severe hypernasality, mild nasal emission, phonetic disorders (omission of several consonants, decreased intraoral pressure in explosives, insufficient frication of fricatives and the use of a middorsum palatal stop) and phonological disorders (deletion of initial and final consonants and consonant clusters). The increased objective nasalance values are in agreement with the presence of the audible nasality disorders. The results revealed that several phonetic and phonological articulation disorders together with a decreased speech intelligibility and resonance disorders are present in the child with a rare craniofacial cleft. To what extent a secondary surgery for velopharyngeal insufficiency, combined with speech therapy, will improve speech intelligibility, articulation and resonance characteristics is a subject for further research. The results of such analyses may ultimately serve as a starting point for specific surgical and logopedic treatment that addresses the specific needs of children with rare facial clefts.
BackgroundSeveral conditions and diseases can result in speech problems that can have a negative impact on everyday functioning, referred to as communicative participation. Subjective problems with acquired speech problems are often assessed with the speech handicap index (SHI). To assess generic participation problems, the Utrecht Scale for Evaluation of Rehabilitation–Participation (USER-P) questionnaire is frequently used. The English questionnaire Communicative Participation Item Bank—short form (CPIB short form) is a 10-item valid, reliable instrument that assesses communicative participation. In the absence of a Dutch equivalent, translation and validation of the CPIB short form was required.AimsTo translate the CPIB short form into Dutch, and to determine its psychometric properties for the group of adults with speech problems resulting from a neurological aetiology or head and neck cancer.Methods & ProceduresTranslation of the CPIB short form was performed following the instructions of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment for Cancer (EORTC). In a cross-sectional multi-centre study, participants completed the Dutch CPIB short form together with the SHI and USER-P, and the CPIB a second time after 2 weeks. We assessed internal consistency and test–retest reliability of the CPIB. Construct validity was assessed based on correlations with SHI, USER-P and speech assessments.Outcomes & ResultsIn the validation study, 122 participants were included: 51 with dysarthria due to different neurological disorders, 48 with speech problems due to head and neck cancer treatment and 23 healthy controls. Internal consistency of the items was high (Cronbach's alpha = 0.962), the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for test–retest reliability was high 0.908 (95% CI = 0.870–0.935). Construct validity was supported by a strong correlation between the Dutch CPIB short form and the SHI total score (SHI total rs = 0.887) and a moderate correlation between the Dutch CPIB-10 and the USER-P subscales (USER-P Frequency rs = 0.365; USER-P restrictions and USER-P satisfaction rs = 0.546). A moderate correlation was found between the Dutch CPIB-10 and the speech performance assessments (degree of distortedness r = −0.0557; p ≤ 0.001; degree of intelligibility r = 0.0562).Conclusions & ImplicationsThe Dutch CPIB short form provides a valid and reliable tool for clinical practice and research purposes. It allows clinicians to start using this PROM in clinical and research practice to systematically investigate the impact of the speech problems on communicative participation in a Dutch-speaking population.What this paper addsWhat is already known on the subjectCommunicative participation allows people to take part in life situations, but can be affected by acquired speech problems. The CPIB is a patient-reported outcome measure for the assessment of this concept. For the English language the 46-item bank and a 10-item short form is available.What this paper adds to existing knowledgeThis paper describes the process of translation of the CPIB short form into Dutch, and confirms its reproducibility and validity.What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?With this validated Dutch version of the CPIB short form available, professionals can implement this tool in clinical and research practice to systematically evaluate communicative participation.
Background: Children with difficulties in listening and understanding speech despite normal peripheral hearing, can be diagnosed with the diagnosis Auditory Processing Disorder (A). However, there are doubts about the validity of this diagnosis. The aim of this study was to examine the relation between the listening difficulties of children between 8 and 12 years with suspected A and the attention, working memory, nonverbal intelligence and communication abilities of these children.Material and methods: In this case-control study we examined 10 children who reported listening difficulties in spite of normal peripheral hearing (3 referred by speech-language pathologist in the Northern Netherlands, 6 by an audiological center in the Southern Netherlands and one by parental concern) and 21 typically developing children (recruitment through word of mouth and by the website Taalexpert.nl), ages 8;0 to 12;0 years. The parents of all children completed three questionnaires about history, behavioral symptoms of ADHD, and communication skills (Children’s Communication Checklist). Teachers of the children completed the Children’s Auditory Processing Performance Scale (CHAPPS). Children were assessed for auditory processing abilities (speech-in-noise, filtered speech, binaural fusion, dichotic listening), nonverbal intelligence (Raven’s Coloured Progressive Matrices), and working memory (Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals). Auditory and visual attention was studied with four behavioral tests of the WAFF battery of the Vienna Test System (Schuhfried).Results: Preliminary analysis shows no differences between groups on the auditory processing tests and nonverbal intelligence quotient. Children in the experimental group have poorer communication performance (parent report), poorer listening skills (teacher report), and poorer working memory and attention skills (behavioral tests).Conclusions: The results of this study showed that there is a difference between children with listening complaints and typically developing children, but that the problems are not specific to the auditory modality. There seems to be no evidence for the validity of an auditory deficit.
