You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Validity of auditory perceptual assessment of velopharyngeal function and dysfunction – the VPC-Sum and the VPC-Rate
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Multilingual Communication Disorders, March 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1080/02699206.2017.1302510 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Anette Lohmander, Emilie Hagberg, Christina Persson, Elisabeth Willadsen, Inger Lundeborg, Julie Davies, Christina Havstam, Maria Boers, Mia Kisling-Møller, Suvi Alaluusua, Ragnhild Aukner, Nina Helen Pedersen, Leena Turunen, Jill Nyberg |
| Abstract |
Overall weighted or composite variables for perceptual auditory estimation of velopharyngeal closure or competence have been used in several studies for evaluation of velopharyngeal function during speech. The aim of the present study was to investigate the validity of a composite score (VPC-Sum) and of auditory perceptual ratings of velopharyngeal competence (VPC-Rate). Available VPC-Sum scores and judgments of associated variables (hypernasality, audible nasal air leakage, weak pressure consonants, and non-oral articulation) from 391 5-year olds with repaired cleft palate (the Scandcleft project) were used to investigate content validity, and 339 of these were compared with an overall judgment of velopharyngeal competence (VPC-Rate) on the same patients by the same listeners. Significant positive correlations were found between the VPC-Sum and each of the associated variables (Cronbachs alpha 0.55-0.87, P < 0.001), and a moderately significant positive correlation between VPC-Sum and VPC-Rate (Rho 0.698, P < 0.01). The latter classified cases well when VPC-Sum was dichotomized with 67% predicted velopharyngeal competence and 90% velopharyngeal incompetence. The validity of the VPC-Sum was good and the VPC-Rate a good predictor, suggesting possible use of both measures depending on the objective. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Sweden | 1 | 33% |
| Finland | 1 | 33% |
| Norway | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Finland | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 35 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 7 | 19% |
| Other | 5 | 14% |
| Researcher | 5 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 4 | 11% |
| Unknown | 10 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 33% |
| Linguistics | 2 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 6% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 6% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Unknown | 14 | 39% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 August 2017.
All research outputs
#16,725,651
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Multilingual Communication Disorders
#304
of 527 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#196,925
of 323,927 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Multilingual Communication Disorders
#6
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 527 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 323,927 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.