JCPSLP Vol 18 No. 1Mar 2016

participants’ scores on the rhyme awareness subtest of the PIPA compared with the other subtests (Wilks’ Lamda = .686, F(4, 26) = 2.98, p = .038, multivariate partial eta squared = .314), indicating that, on average, children with CL/P in this study presented with poorer phonological awareness skills in rhyme awareness. The mean language score for this sample, based on the CELF-P2 or CELF-4 assessment, was 94.50 (SD = 13.84; range = 61–118), indicating that, on average, children with CL/P in this study presented with language skills within the average range. Participants’ language scores were highly variable however, with 8 children (27%) in the study presenting with a standard scores below 85. This study also aimed to investigate the nature of the relationship between phonological awareness abilities in 5-year-old children with CL/P and language skills, speech production, middle ear function, and velopharyngeal function. Table 3 illustrates correlations, and associated levels of significance, between the dependent variable, phonological awareness, and each independent variable. A marginally significant correlation was detected between phonological awareness scores and language scores (R 2 = .355, p = .054). Paired t-tests revealed no statistically significant association between phonological awareness and speech diagnosis (.060, p = .754), velopharyngeal function (.028, p = .883), and middle ear function (–.044, p = .817). Further, no statistically significant association was detected between phonological awareness scores and gender (–.124, p = .514), and cleft type (.167, p = .377). Given no statistically significant correlation between phonological awareness and speech diagnosis, velopharyngeal function, and middle ear function was detected, these four variables were omitted from the final regression model. Table 4 displays the results of the final univariate regression. A histogram of the residuals closely approximated a normal distribution, validating the assumption of normality for error in the model. The final model accounted for 12.6% (p = .054) of variance in phonological awareness scores. Language Score (.328, p = .054) had a marginally significant relationship with phonological awareness skills, indicating that language abilities may influence the phonological awareness skills of children with CL/P. Discussion The aims of this exploratory study were to explore phonological awareness skills in 5-year-old children with

conducted using paired t-tests (for continuous variables) and Pearson correlations (for ordinal variables) to determine multicollinearity between the variables. The significance level was set at ≤ .05. Bivariate analysis revealed no significant relationships between phonological awareness and speech production, velopharyngeal function, and middle ear function. Univariate regression was then used to explore the relationship between phonological awareness skills and language performance. Regression analysis was used as a statistical process for estimating the relationship between phonological awareness and language performance. Model significance was analysed using overall regression ANOVA. Coefficient significance levels were set at ≤ .05. Results Table 1 displays a summary of speech diagnosis, velopharyngeal function, and middle ear function of the 30 participants in the study. These assessment results suggest that the majority of children with CL/P in this study presented with adequate velopharyngeal function (n = 20; 66.7%), poor speech production skills (n = 24; 80%), and abnormal middle ear function (n = 25; 73.3%). The mean composite phonological awareness score for this sample based on standard scores of the five subtests of the PIPA was 44.50 (SD = 12.77; range = 25–71). Table 2 presents the descriptive statistics of each subtest of the PIPA. According to test norms, mean standard scores on each of the PIPA subtests were within the average range (i.e., 7–13). However, participants’ scores were highly variable. There was a significant difference between

Table 2. Participant’s standard scores on individual subtests of the PIPA (N = 30) PIPA subtest

M SD Range

Syllable Segmentation

9.23 3.059 3–15

Rhyme Awareness

7.43 3.014 3–13

Alliteration Awareness

9.23 3.081 4–15

Phoneme Isolation

9.40 4.123 6–16

Phoneme Segmentation 9.20 5.492 3–17 N.B.Standardscoresbetween7and13indicateskillswithinnormal limits

Table 3. Summary of correlations between phonological awareness and candidate variables for regression model (N = 30) Variable Language score Speech diagnosis Velopharyngeal function Middle ear function Gender

Cleft type

Correlation Phonologicalawareness

.335

.060

.028

–.044

–.124

.167

Significance

.054

.754

.883

.817

.514

.377

Table 4. Summary of final regression model (N = 30) Model Standardised co-efficients

t-value Significance 95.0% confidence interval for – Correlations

Beta

Lower bound Upperbound

Part

Constant

.869

.392

–18.360

45.392

Language score

.328

2.012

.054

–.006

.662

.355

37

JCPSLP Volume 18, Number 1 2016

Journal of Clinical Practice in Speech-Language Pathology