Non-Oral Compensatory Misarticulations Revisited

Hardin-Jones, Mary; Chapman, Kathy

doi:10.1177/10556656211026488

Cited by 10 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 63 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In other words, the motor–phonetic speech error evolves into a linguistic–phonological speech error. Recently, Hardin‐Jones and Chapman (2021) reviewed the aetiology, frequency and treatment of non‐oral CSCs (compensatory speech errors produced behind the velopharyngeal port, e.g., pharyngeal or glottal productions and active nasal fricatives). The authors hypothesized that the persistence of non‐oral errors in children with a repaired CP±L is linked to a lack of expansion of their consonant inventory during early babbling development (i.e., delays in early phonological development) rather than an integration of atypical motor‐error patterns in later phonological development.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How acceptable is the use of linguistic–phonological intervention in children with cleft palate? A qualitative study in speech therapists

Alighieri

Bettens

Hens

et al. 2023

Intl J Lang & Comm Disor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background & Aims: Even though evidence for the use of linguisticphonological intervention approaches in children with a cleft (lip and) palate (CP±L) is still limited, these approaches are being used by speech-language pathologists (SLPs) to treat active or compensatory cleft speech disorders in clinical practice. It is, however, unknown to what extent linguistic-phonological intervention is acceptable to SLPs. The aim of this study is to investigate the retrospective acceptability of linguistic-phonological intervention in children with a CP±L from the perspective of SLPs using the theoretical framework of acceptability (TFA). Methods & Procedures:A total of 18 female community SLPs, aged between 23 and 63 years, were included in the study. An independent interviewer conducted semi-structured interviews. Data were analysed using a deductive coding approach. Statements of the SLPs were related to the seven constructs of the TFA: affective attitude, burden, ethicality, intervention coherence, opportunity costs, perceived effectiveness and self-efficacy. Outcomes & Results:The affective attitude and perceived effectiveness of linguistic-phonological intervention differed among the SLPs: some therapists had positive attitudes towards these approaches, while others did not. Positive attitudes were related to the successful use of linguistic-phonological intervention in the past. The construct 'ethicality' revealed that negative attitudes towards these approaches were attributed to the limited available scientific evidence or negative experiences while using these approaches. In contrast, SLPs who had positive attitudes considered these interventions as 'important' and 'valuable'. Some SLPs had negative reflections on linguistic-phonological intervention as these approaches were considered demanding in terms of time needed to gain knowledge on using them in children with a CP±L (constructs 'burden' and 'opportunity costs'). Additionally, some SLPs doubted their self-efficacy to use these approaches in clinical practice.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How acceptable is the use of linguistic–phonological intervention in children with cleft palate? A qualitative study in speech therapists

Alighieri

Bettens

Hens

et al. 2023

Intl J Lang & Comm Disor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Compensatory Articulation Errors in Patients With Velopharyngeal Dysfunction and Palatal Anomalies

Nachmani

Biadsee

Masalha

et al. 2022

J Speech Lang Hear Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: The aim of this study was to assess the frequency and types of compensatory articulations (CAs) in nonsyndromic patients with velopharyngeal dysfunction (VPD) and various palatal anomalies and to determine the relationship between the frequency of CAs, type of palatal anomaly, and phonological errors. Method: A total of 783 nonsyndromic, Hebrew-speaking patients with VPD and various palatal anomalies (cleft lip and palate [CLP], cleft palate [CP], submucous CP [SMCP], occult submucous CP [OSMCP], or non-CP) were studied retrospectively. Perceptual VPD tests, including articulation and phonological assessment, were conducted. CAs were described as below the level of the defect in the vocal tract (abnormal backing of oral targets to post-uvular place) or in front of it within the oral cavity (palatalization) and at the velopharyngeal port. Results: Among 783 patients, 213 (27.2%) had CAs. Most CAs (18.4%) occurred below the level of the defect, followed by CAs at the velopharyngeal port (12.0%) or in front of it (4.9%). No differences were found in the frequency of CAs between patients with CP (47.8%) or CLP (52.6%) and between those with non-CP (13.6%) or OSMCP (14.7%). SMCP patients had lower frequency of CAs (29.8%) than CP ( p = .003) and CLP ( p = .002) patients but higher frequency than OSMCP ( p = .002) and non-CP ( p = .002) patients did. Among the 783 patients, 247 (31.5%) had phonological errors. A higher frequency of phonological errors was found in patients with CAs (55.4%) compared to those without (22.6%) and in all palatal anomaly groups except CLP (31.4% vs. 23.9%). Conclusions: CAs in nonsyndromic patients with VPD remained relatively high in all age groups, up to adulthood. CAs are influenced by inadequate velar length following palatal repair, as well as by oral structural abnormalities, whereas poor muscle function due to OSMCP and/or abnormal size and/or shape of nasopharynx has less influence. Errors produced in front of the velopharyngeal port are influenced by the structural anomaly of CLP. This information may contribute to general phonetic and phonological theories and genetic investigations about CP anomalies.

show abstract

Speech Production Errors in Children With Cleft Palate With or Without Cleft Lip

Lien

Scherer

Cordero

et al. 2023

J Speech Lang Hear Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to describe the frequency of speech production errors in children with cleft palate with or without cleft lip (CP±L) and explore characteristics related to speech production errors. Method: Fifty-six children with nonsyndromic CP±L between the ages of 4;0 and 7;11 (years;months) were included in this study. The children's audio-recorded production of a sentence repetition task was transcribed using narrow transcription and coded for speech error type. Results: Children used, on average, 18 speech errors during the sentence repetition task that sampled 59 phoneme targets. On average, phonological errors were used most frequently, with nine errors per sample, followed by anterior oral speech errors at four errors per sample, and non-oral compensatory errors at three errors per sample. Individual-level characteristics including age and cleft type were related to frequency of phonological errors and anterior oral speech errors, respectively. One treatment-level characteristic, hypernasality, was related to use of non-oral compensatory errors and passive speech errors. Conclusions: This study identified the most frequent speech production errors as phonological errors, followed by anterior oral speech errors and non-oral compensatory errors. Individual-level and treatment-level characteristics were related to speech production errors. Future research should explore additional characteristics that may influence use of speech production errors. Clinically, this study adds information regarding speech error types that should be monitored throughout cleft care, including phonological errors that were most prevalent among this sample. Supplemental Material: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.22044095

show abstract

Non-Oral Compensatory Misarticulations Revisited

Cited by 10 publications

References 63 publications

How acceptable is the use of linguistic–phonological intervention in children with cleft palate? A qualitative study in speech therapists

How acceptable is the use of linguistic–phonological intervention in children with cleft palate? A qualitative study in speech therapists

Compensatory Articulation Errors in Patients With Velopharyngeal Dysfunction and Palatal Anomalies

Speech Production Errors in Children With Cleft Palate With or Without Cleft Lip

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About