Intelligibility in 3-Year-Olds With Cleft Lip and/or Palate Using the Intelligibility in Context Scale: Findings from the Cleft Collective Cohort Study
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online September, 2021
Intelligibility in 3-Year-Olds With Cleft Lip and/or Palate Using the Intelligibility in Context Scale: Findings from the Cleft Collective Cohort Study
To provide comparison data on the Intelligibility in Context Scale (ICS) for a sample of 3-year-old English-speaking children born with any cleft type.
Design:
Questionnaire data from the Cleft Collective Cohort Study were used. Descriptive and inferential statistics were carried out to determine difference according to children’s cleft type and syndromic status.
Participants:
A total of 412 children born with cleft lip and/or palate whose mothers had completed the ICS when their child was 3 years old.
Main Outcome Measure(s):
Mothers’ rating of their children’s intelligibility using the ICS.
Results:
The average ICS score for the total sample was 3.75 (sometimes-usually intelligible; standard deviation [SD] = 0.76, 95% CIs = 3.68-3.83) of a possible score of 5 (always intelligible). Children’s speech was reported to be most intelligible to their mothers (mean = 4.33, SD = 0.61, 95% CIs = 4.27-4.39) and least intelligible to strangers (mean = 3.36, SD = 1.00, 95% CIs = 3.26-3.45). There was strong evidence (P < .001) for a difference in intelligibility between children with cleft lip only (n = 104, mean = 4.13, SD = 0.62, 95% CIs = 4.01-4.25) and children with any form of cleft palate (n = 308, mean = 3.63, SD = 0.76, 95% CIs = 3.52-3.71). Children born with cleft palate with or without cleft lip and an identified syndrome were rated as less intelligible (n = 63, mean = 3.28, SD = 0.85, 95% CIs = 3.06-3.49) compared to children who did not have a syndrome (n = 245, mean = 3.72, SD = 0.71, 95% CIs = 3.63-3.81).
Conclusions:
These results provide preliminary comparative data for clinical services using the outcome measures recommended by the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement.
AlberyL. Approaches to treatment of speech problems. In: StengelhofenJ, ed. Cleft Palate: The Nature of Remediation of Communication Problems. Churchill Livingstone; 1989:97–110.
2.
AlloriACKelleyTMearaJGAlbertABonanthayaKChapmanKCunninghamMDaskalogiannakisJDe GierHHeggieAH, et al.A standard set of outcome measures for the comprehensive appraisal of cleft care. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2017;54(5):540–554.
3.
BoyceJOKilpatrickNMorganAT. Speech and language characteristics in individuals with nonsyndromic submucous cleft palate-a systematic review. Child Care Health Dev. 2018;44(6):818–831.
4.
BruneelLBettensKDe BodtMRocheNBonteKVan LierdeK. Speech outcomes following Sommerlad primary palatoplasty: results of the Ghent university hospital. J Commun Disord. 2018;72:111–121.
5.
Cleft Registry and Audit Network. (CRANE) Database 2018 Annual Report. The Cleft Registry and Audit Network; 2018.
6.
FeragenKBAuknerRSærvoldTKHideO.Speech, language, and reading skills in 10-year-old children with palatal clefts: the impact of additional conditions. J Commun Disord. 2017;66:1–12.
7.
FlipsenPJr. Measuring the intelligibility of conversational speech in children. Clin Linguist Phon. 2006;20(4):303–312.
8.
GnanavelKPushpavathiM. Effect of type of cleft and speech stimuli on speech intelligibility in individuals with cleft lip and palate. JAIISH. 2012;31:33–39.
9.
Hardin-JonesMAJonesDL. Speech production of preschoolers with cleft palate. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2005;42(1):7–13.
10.
HodgeMDanielsJ. Test of Child Speech + Intelligibility Measures. University of Alberta; 2007.
11.
HustadKCMahrTNatzkePEMRathouzPJ. Development of speech intelligibility between 30 and 47 Months in typically developing children: a cross-sectional study of growth. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2020;63(6):1675–1687.
12.
JohannissonTBLohmanderAPerssonC. Assessing intelligibility by single words, sentences and spontaneous speech: a methodological study of the speech production of 10-year-olds. Logoped Phoniatr Vocol. 2014;39(4):159–168.
13.
JohnASellDSweeneyTHarding-BellAWilliamsA.The Cleft Audit Protocol for Speech—Augmented: a validated and reliable measure for auditing cleft speech. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2006;43(3):272–288.
14.
KentRDMioloGBloedelS. The intelligibility of children’s speech: a review of evaluation procedures. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 1994;3(2):81–95.
15.
KonstEMWeersink-BraksHRietveldTPetersH. An intelligibility assessment of toddlers with cleft lip and palate who received and did not receive presurgical infant orthopedic treatment. J Commun Disord. 2000;33(6):483–501.
16.
LeeY. Validation of the Intelligibility in Context Scale for Korean-speaking pre-school children. Int J Speech Lang Pathol. 2018;21(4):1–10.
17.
LohmanderA. Cleft palate speech—assessment and intervention. In: HowardSLohmanderA, eds. Surgical Intervention and Speech Outcomes in Cleft Lip and Palate. Wiley-Blackwell; 2011:373.
18.
LohmanderABorrelEHenningssonGHavstamCLundeborgIPerssonC. SVANTE; Svenskt Artikulations Och Nasalitets Test (Swedish Articulation and Nasality Test). Pedagogisk Design; 2005.
19.
LohmanderAFriedeHElanderAPerssonCLiljaJ. Speech development in patients with unilateral cleft lip and palate treated with different delays in closure of the hard palate after early velar repair: a longitudinal perspective. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg. 2006;40(5):267–274.
20.
LuscombeC. Velopharyngeal dysfunction. In: PhippenG, ed. Speech Therapy in Cleft Palate and Velopharyngeal Dysfunction. J&R Press Ltd; 2011:7–26.
21.
McCormackJMcLeodSMcAllisterLHarrisonL. A systematic review of the association between childhood speech impairment and participation across the life span. Int J Speech Lang Pathol. 2009;11(2):155–170.
22.
McLeodS. Intelligibility in Context Scale: cross-linguistic use, validity, and reliability. Speech Lang Hear. 2020;23(1):9–16.
23.
McLeodSCroweKShahaeianA. Intelligibility in Context Scale: normative and validation data for English-speaking preschoolers. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch. 2015;46(3):266–276.
24.
McLeodSHarrisonLJMcAllisterLMcCormackJ. Speech sound disorders in a community study of preschool children. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2013;22(3):503–522.
25.
McLeodSHarrisonLJMcCormackJ. The Intelligibility in Context Scale: validity and reliability of a subjective rating measure. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2012;55(2):648–656.
26.
NeumannSRietzCStennekenP. The German Intelligibility in Context Scale (ICS-G): reliability and validity evidence. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2017;52(5):585–594.
27.
PerssonCElanderALohmander-AgerskovASoederpalmE. Speech outcomes in isolated cleft palate: impact of cleft extent and additional malformations. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2002;34(4):397–408.
PhippenG. Speech therapy in cleft palate and velopharyngeal dysfunction. In: PhippenG, ed. Introduction to Cleft Palate. J&R Press; 2014:398.
30.
PrathaneeBPumnumTSeepuahamCJaiyongP. Five-year speech and language outcomes in children with cleft lip-palate. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2016;44(10):1553–1560.
31.
RandagACDreiseMMRuettermannM. Surgical impact and speech outcome at 2.5 years after one-or two-stage cleft palate closure. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2014;78(11):1903–1907.
32.
RubenRJ. Redefining the survival of the fittest: communication disorders in the 21st century. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2000;(49):S37–S38.
33.
SchusterMMaierABockletTNkenkeEHolstAEysholdtUStelzleF. Automatically evaluated degree of intelligibility of children with different cleft type from preschool and elementary school measured by automatic speech recognition. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2012;3(76):362–369.
34.
SellDGrunwellPMildinhallSMurphyTCornishTABearnDShawWCMurrayJJWilliamsACSandyJR. Cleft lip and palate care in the United Kingdom—the clinical standards advisory group (CSAG) study. Part 3: speech outcomes. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2001;38(1):30–37.
35.
SellDMildinhallSAlberyLWillsASandyJNessAR. The cleft care UK study. Part 4: perceptual speech outcomes. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2015;18(suppl 2):36–46.
SommerladBC. A technique for cleft palate repair. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2003;112(6):1542–1548.
38.
SpruntBMarellaM. Measurement accuracy: enabling human rights for Fijian students with speech difficulties. Int J Speech Lang Pathol. 2018;20(1):89–97.
39.
VallinoLDZukerRNapoliJA. A study of speech, language, hearing, and dentition in children with cleft lip only. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2008;45(5):485–494.
40.
Van DoornikAGerritsEMcLeodSTerbandH.Impact of communication partner familiarity and speech accuracy on parents’ ratings of their child for the Intelligibility in Context Scale: Dutch. Int J Speech Lang Pathol. 2018;20(3):350–360.
41.
Van LierdeKMDe BodtMVan BorselJWuytsFLVan CauwenbergeP. Effect of cleft type on overall speech intelligibility and resonance. Folia Phoniatr Logop. 2002;54(3):158–168.
42.
WashingtonKNMcDonaldMMMcLeodSCroweKDevonishH. Validation of the Intelligibility in Context Scale for Jamaican creole-speaking preschoolers. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2017;26(3):750–761.
World Health Organisation. Global Registry and Database on Craniofacial Anomalies: Report of a WHO Registry Meeting on Craniofacial Anomalies. World Health Organisation; 2001.
45.
WrenYMillerLLPetersTJEmondARoulestoneS. Prevalence and predictors of persistent speech sound disorder at eight years old: findings from a population cohort study. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2016;59(4):647–673.
46.
YontKMHewittLEMiccioAW. What did you say? understanding conversational breakdowns in children with speech and language impairments. Clin Linguist Phon. 2002;16(4):265–285.
