Objective: The purpose of this study was to determine whether age and vowel contexts influence test-retest nasalance score variability in typically developing Korean children. Participants: Forty-five 3- to 5-year-old children with normal speech and resonance participated in the study. Methods: All subjects were asked to repeat three 4-syllable speech stimuli in high, low, or mixed vowel contexts twice after the examiner. An immediate test-retest nasalance score was assessed with no headgear change. Test and retest variability in nasalance scores was examined based on the absolute difference in nasalance scores of the first and second repetition for each stimulus. Results: A significant main effect of the vowel context on variability in nasalance scores was found, but the effect of age on nasalance variability was not significant. Mean absolute difference in nasalance scores for the stimuli in the high vowel contexts was significantly greater than for the stimuli in the low and mixed vowel contexts. Conclusions: The results suggested that variability in nasalance scores might not decrease with age and tend to show considerable individual variations. Increased variability in nasalance scores in the high vowel context might be associated with aerodynamic and acoustic characteristics resulting from physiological aspects of the vowel /i/.

Keywords:
Nasalance score, Test-retest variability, Vowel context, Age, Typically developing Korean children
1.
Sharkey SG, Folkins JW: Variability of lip and jaw movements in children and adults: implications for the development of speech motor control. J Speech Hear Res 1985; 28: 8–15.
2.
Stathopoulos ET: Variability revisited: an acoustic, aerodynamic, and respiratory kinematic comparison of children and adults during speech. J Phon 1995; 23: 67–80.
3.
Smith BL, Kenny MK, Hussain S: A longitudinal investigation of duration and temporal variability in children’s speech production. J Acoust Soc Am 1996; 99: 2344–2349.
4.
Koenig LL, Lucero JC, Perlman E: Speech production variability in fricatives of children and adults: results of functional data analysis. J Acoust Soc Am 2008; 124: 3158–3170.
5.
Gerosa M, Giuliani D, Brugnara F: Acoustic variability and automatic recognition of children’s speech. Speech Commun 2007; 49: 847–860.
6.
Lee S, Potamianos A, Narayanan S: Acoustic of children’s speech: developmental changes of temporal and spectral parameters. J Acoust Soc Am 1999; 105: 1455–1468.
7.
Bruner N: Organization of early skilled action. Child Dev 1973; 44: 1–11.
8.
Smith BL: Effects of experimental manipulations and intrinsic contrasts on relationships between duration and temporal variability in children’s and adults’ speech. J Phon 1994; 22: 155–175.
9.
Bernstein N: The Coordination and Regulation of Movements. New York, Pergamon Press, 1967.
10.
Tingley B, Allen G: Development of speech timing control in children. Child Dev 1975; 46: 186–194.
11.
Ohde RN: Fundamental frequency correlates of stop consonant voicing and vowel quality in the speech of preadolescent children. J Acoust Soc Am 1985; 78: 1554–1561.
12.
Eguchi S, Hirsh IJ: Development of speech sounds in children. Acta Otolaryngol Suppl 1969; 257: 1–51.
13.
Kent RD, Forner LL: Speech segment durations in sentence recitations by children and adults. J Phon 1980; 8: 157–168.
14.
Ha S, Kuehn DP: Temporal characteristics of nasalization in children and adult speakers of American English and Korean during production of three vowel contexts. J Acoust Soc Am 2006; 120: 1622–1630.
15.
Lewis KE, Watterson T, Blanton A: Comparison of short-term and long-term variability in nasalance scores. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 2008; 45: 495–500.
16.
Watterson T, Lewis KE: Test-retest nasalance score variability in hypernasal speakers. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 2006; 43: 415–419.
17.
Watterson T, Lewis KE, Ludlow JC, Ludlow PC: The effect of nasal decongestion on nasal patency and nasalance scores in subjects with normal speech. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 2008; 45: 620–627.
18.
Watterson T, Lewis KE, Brancamp T: Comparison of nasalance scores obtained with the Nasometer 6200 and the Nasometer II 6400. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 2005; 43: 574–579.
19.
De Boer G, Bressmann T: Comparison of nasalance scores obtained with the Nasometer 6200 and the Nasometer 6450. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 2014; 51: 90–97.
20.
Litzaw LL, Dalston RM: The effect of gender upon nasalance scores among normal adult speakers. J Commun Disord 1992; 25: 55–64.
21.
Seaver EJ, Dalston RM, Leeper HA, Adams LE: A study of nasometric values for normal nasal resonance. J Speech Hear Res 1991; 34: 715–721.
22.
Kummer AW, Clark SL, Redle EE, Thomsen LL, Billmire DA: Current practice in assessing and reporting speech outcomes of cleft palate and velopharygeal surgery: a survey of cleft palate/craniofacial professionals. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 2012; 49: 146–152.
23.
Kummer AW: Cleft Palate and Craniofacial Anomalies: Effects on Speech and Resonance, ed 3. Clifton Park, Cengage Learning, 2013.
24.
Awan S, Omlor K, Watts C: Effects of computer system and vowel loading on measures of nasalance. J Speech Hear Res 2011; 54: 1284–1294.
25.
Lewis KE, Watterson T, Quint T: The effect of vowels on nasalance scores. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 2000; 37: 584–589.
26.
Kummer AW: The Mackay-Kummer SNAP Test-R. 2005. http://www.kaypentax.com.
27.
Kim M, Sim H, Choi H: The effect of phonetic context and stimulus length on the nasalance score in normal adults. Commun Sci Disord 2000; 5: 1–15.
28.
Ha S, Cho S: Nasalance scores for normal Korean-speaking adults and children: effects of age, vowel context, and stimulus length. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2015; 79: 1235–1239.
29.
Gildersleeve-Neumann CE, Dalston RM: Nasalance scores in noncleft individuals: why not zero? Cleft Palate Craniofac J 2001; 38: 106–111.
30.
Young LH, Zajac D, Mayo R, Hooper CR: Effect of vowel height and vocal intensity on anticipatory nasal airflow in individuals with normal speech. J Speech Hear Res 2001; 44: 52–60.
© 2017 S. Karger AG, Basel
2017
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.