Assessment Methods and Intervention Strategies for Cleft-Related Lateral Misarticulation in Chinese-Speaking Children
Susu Zhang,Tingting Wang,Lihua Tang,Xiao Li,Zibo Shang,Tianyi Zhou,Na Lan,Lijun Yang,Haiyan Zhou
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/SCS.0000000000010349
Abstract:The aim of this study was to analyze the characteristics and error speech features of cleft-related lateral misarticulation and provide a basis for clinical evaluation and rational intervention. Participants who were diagnosed with lateral misarticulation after cleft palate repairment were 126 children aged 4, 6 to 16, and 11, and they had complete palatopharyngeal closure, no abnormalities in their speech organs and occlusion, and no hearing or intellectual impairments. The Chinese standard pronunciation clarity word list, the American KAY CSL4500, the Beijing Yangchen YF-16 computer speech analysis workstation, soundproof rooms, Wechsler scales of intelligence-fourth edition, and audiometers were used to evaluate the cleft-related lateral misarticulation. Statistical analysis was performed on the age, gender, error rate, corner of the mouth deviation direction, comorbidity, duration of intervention, period of treatment, and therapeutic effect of concentrated or normal intervention group in different patients. Our results showed that 2 to 3 straight stripes were visible at the onset of consonants /ti:/ /t'i:/, and 3 clear straight lines were visible in /tʂ/, indicating that the lateralized sound had 2 or 3 bursts and lasted for 1 to 2 ms. The onset age of lateralized sound was mostly below 12 years old. Chinese lateralized sound mainly occurred in vowel /i:/, and the occurrence rate of consonants with tongue surface /tɕ]/ /tɕ'/ /ɕ/ was the highest. In addition, the corner of the mouth deviation was also an indicator of lateralization sound, and other types of speech disorders mostly accompanied it. There was a significant difference in the improvement of speech clarity between the concentrated intervention group and the normal group before and after treatment. The 2 groups' average duration and course of treatment were not significantly different. Still, the period of concentrated intervention was shortened considerably, and the speech clarity of both groups of children after treatment exceeded 96%, reaching a normal level.