An Evaluation of Communication Apprehension in Adolescents with Velopharyngeal Inadequacy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This investigation evaluated the construct of communication apprehension (CA) in adolescents with velopharyngeal inadequacy (VPI). DESIGN: Prospective comparative study. SETTINGS: The investigation was conducted in a hospital-based clinic, voice laboratory, and the homes of participants. PARTICIPANTS: Two groups of children participated in this study. The first group was composed of 14 children between the ages of 8 and 14 years who attended the velopharyngeal inadequacy (VPI) clinic at our institution, and the second group was composed of 14 age-matched children from the community with no history of speech or voice disorders. INTERVENTIONS: The study involved completion of the Measure of Elementary Communication Apprehension (MECA) by all 28 participants (14 experimental and 14 control subjects). Reliability of the subjects' responses to the MECA was also evaluated. OUTCOME MEASURES: Communication apprehension scores obtained from the MECA were the main focus of the study. RESULTS: Children with VPI experienced significantly higher levels of CA than did those in the control group. Moderate-to-good reliability of the MECA was found. CONCLUSIONS: Based on these data, children with VPI may be experiencing increased levels of CA. Consequently, the experience of high CA has the potential to affect the communication performance and social functioning of children with VPI.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".