The influence of listener experience and academic training on ratings of nasality

This study assessed listener agreement levels for nasality ratings, and the strength of relationship between nasality ratings and nasalance scores on one hand, and listener clinical experience and formal academic training in cleft palate speech on the other. The listeners were 12 adults who represented four levels of clinical experience and academic training in cleft palate speech. Three listeners were teachers with no clinical experience and no academic training (TR), three were graduate students in speech-language pathology (GS) with academic training but no clinical experience, three were craniofacial surgeons (MD) with extensive experience listening to cleft palate speech but with no academic training in speech disorders, and three were certified speech-language pathologists (SLP) with both extensive academic training and clinical experience. The speech samples were audio recordings from 20 persons representing a range of nasality from normal to severely hypernasal. Nasalance scores were obtained simultaneously with the audio recordings. Results revealed that agreement levels for nasality ratings were highest for the SLPs, followed by the MDs. Thus, the more experienced groups tended to be more reliable. Mean nasality ratings obtained for each of the rater groups revealed an inverse relationship with experience. That is, the two groups with clinical experience (SLP and MD) tended to rate nasality lower than the two groups without experience (GS and TR). Correlation coefficients between nasalance scores and nasality judgments were low to moderate for all groups and did not follow a pattern. EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES: As a result of this activity, the reader will be able to (1) describe the influence of listener experience and academic training in cleft palate speech on perceptual ratings of nasality. (2) describe the influence of experience and training on the nasality/nasalance relationship and, (3) compare the present findings to previous findings reported in the literature.