Tim Bressmann1. 1. Graduate Department of Speech-Language Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada. tim.bressmann@utoronto.ca
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare nasalance scores obtained with the Nasometer, the NasalView, and the OroNasal System; evaluate test-retest reliability of the three systems; and explore whether three common text passages used for nasalance analysis could be shortened to a sentence each. SUBJECTS: Seventy-six adults with normal speech and hearing (mean age 26.5 years). PROCEDURES: Subjects read the complete Zoo Passage, Rainbow Passage, and Nasal Sentences. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Mean nasalance magnitudes and mean nasalance distances were obtained with the three devices. RESULTS: The Nasometer had the lowest nasalance scores for the nonnasal Zoo Passage. The NasalView had the highest nasalance scores for the phonetically balanced Rainbow Passage. The OroNasal System had the lowest nasalance scores for the Nasal Sentences. The nasalance distance was largest for the Nasometer and smallest for the OroNasal System. Over 90% of the recordings were within 4% to 6% nasalance for most materials recorded with the Nasometer and the NasalView and within 7% to 9% for materials recorded with the OroNasal System. There were significant differences between the complete Zoo Passage and the Nasal Sentences and the individual sentences from these passages for the Nasometer and the OroNasal System. CONCLUSIONS: The three systems measure nasalance in different ways and provide nasalance scores that are not interchangeable. Test-retest variability for the Nasometer and the NasalView may be higher than previously reported. Individual sentences from the Zoo Passage and the Nasal Sentences do not provide nasalance scores that are equivalent to the complete passages.
OBJECTIVE: To compare nasalance scores obtained with the Nasometer, the NasalView, and the OroNasal System; evaluate test-retest reliability of the three systems; and explore whether three common text passages used for nasalance analysis could be shortened to a sentence each. SUBJECTS: Seventy-six adults with normal speech and hearing (mean age 26.5 years). PROCEDURES: Subjects read the complete Zoo Passage, Rainbow Passage, and Nasal Sentences. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Mean nasalance magnitudes and mean nasalance distances were obtained with the three devices. RESULTS: The Nasometer had the lowest nasalance scores for the nonnasal Zoo Passage. The NasalView had the highest nasalance scores for the phonetically balanced Rainbow Passage. The OroNasal System had the lowest nasalance scores for the Nasal Sentences. The nasalance distance was largest for the Nasometer and smallest for the OroNasal System. Over 90% of the recordings were within 4% to 6% nasalance for most materials recorded with the Nasometer and the NasalView and within 7% to 9% for materials recorded with the OroNasal System. There were significant differences between the complete Zoo Passage and the Nasal Sentences and the individual sentences from these passages for the Nasometer and the OroNasal System. CONCLUSIONS: The three systems measure nasalance in different ways and provide nasalance scores that are not interchangeable. Test-retest variability for the Nasometer and the NasalView may be higher than previously reported. Individual sentences from the Zoo Passage and the Nasal Sentences do not provide nasalance scores that are equivalent to the complete passages.