An interventional study of Non-linear based phonological speech intervention and Linear-based speech intervention in Cleft Palate +/- Lip, sponsored by Chinese University of Hong Kong. Enrolling by invitation at 1 site in Hong Kong. Open to participants aged 4 Years to 17 Years. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-07-09.
Sponsored by Chinese University of Hong Kong · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment
Cleft Palate ± Lip (CP±L) is one of the most well-known congenital anomalies worldwide. Children and adolescences with CP±L are at high risk of developing speech and communication difficulties due to a range of cleft-related etiologies. Even with timely or early repair of the palate, children with CP±L may still experience cleft-related speech difficulties with a notable proportion of children having continuing velopharyngeal insufficiency (VPI). VPI refers to the presence of incomplete velopharyngeal closure during speech production. Non-articulation parameters of VPI include hypernasality, nasal airflow errors, and grimace, with hypernasality being the hallmark characteristic of VPI. Speech error patterns attributed to continuing VPI may involve what is termed as active compensatory articulatory gestures. For instance, children with cleft palate speech/VPI may have difficulty building up sufficient oral pressure to produce oral targets and may attempt to achieve closure at the level of the glottis resulting in replacement of oral pressure targets with glottal stops or fricatives. The loss of distinctive features and the ability to make meaningful contrasts potentially impacts on global outcomes such as speech understandability and acceptability adversely. In fact, there was still no sufficient evidence to support the efficacy of specific intervention approaches or techniques. Additionally, there are only very few studies that have systematically compared different intervention approaches. Consensus on the effectiveness of different approaches remains inconclusive.
It is of vital importance to implement evidence-based speech intervention to achieve the optimal speech and resonance outcomes. Historically, speech intervention approaches can be categorized into motor-phonetic (MP) (+/- principles of motor learning) and linguistic-phonological (LP). Motor-phonetic approaches attempt to modify the phonetic errors individually by explicit instruction of the articulatory movement and extensive amount of practice. Motor-phonetic approaches can be undertaken with or without the application of principles of motor learning, which emphasize intensive practice, optimal task difficulty, and variable practice conditions for better retention and generalization. However, the generalization effect was solely evident for the targeted individual phonemes. Increasingly, cleft palate speech/VPI speech disorder is being viewed as a phonological impairment rather than simply an articulation disorder. Linguistic-phonological approaches, on the other hand, refer to phonological rule-based interventions, which attributes the child's speech sound errors to a disordered internal phonological system. Such approaches, target multiple speech sounds or sound classes, and assumes that there would be generalization across phonemes according to their distinctive features. Examples of LP approaches include the minimal pair approach, maximal oppositions and treatment of the empty set, multiple oppositions and Metaphon. Current evidence has suggested that LP approach resulted in a more superior generalization effects in terms of the speech outcomes within the same class and the overall percentage of speech accuracy. Nevertheless, it is crucial to recognize that these LP approaches still predominantly regard speech as a linear sequence of segments and speech sound errors as a set of rules. Target selection tends to be focused on individual phonemic errors in the children's phonetic repertoire and selected specific phonemes for treatment.
In contrast, non-linear phonological (NLP) intervention seeks to capture the complexity of speech sounds organized in a hierarchical structure. It is common to observe a range of phonemes or even classes of phonemes being replaced with a single glottal stop or fricative in cleft palate speech. This results in an extensive collapse of meaningful contrasts in the individual's speech, impacting negatively on speech understandability. As such, target selection in cleft speech intervention would be a critical component for successful treatment outcomes. NLP intervention views a word as a multi-tiered structure and emphasizes the broader nature of the phonological system. With a holistic viewpoint of the speech sound system, the target selection and the treatment direction based on NLP framework would be different. Different research had investigated the use of non-linear phonology in speech intervention. Some of them had revealed the positive outcomes. It is believed that speech intervention guided by non-linear phonology framework would facilitate wider changes in the phonological system of children with cleft palate speech / VPI speech disorder, resulting in a more significant generalization effect and increased overall speech intelligibility. Therefore, the current study would like to investigate the effectiveness of different types speech intervention approaches in children and adolescences with CP±L.
Introduction of the study Cleft Palate with/without Lip (CP±L) Cleft Palate with or without Lip (CP±L) is one of the most well-known congenital anomalies worldwide. Epidemiological studies indicate that it affects approximately 1 in every 600 newborn babies, with rate of occurrences reported at 1.33 to 2.23 per 1000 live and stillbirths in the Chinese population. CP±L can present as syndromic or non-syndromic. Children with CP±L are at high risk of developing speech and communication difficulties due to a range of cleft-related etiologies. Some studies have also showed that children with CP±L may have language and literacy difficulties. Research showed that this group of children require speech-language intervention at different stages across their lifespan. Speech articulation, intelligibility, velopharyngeal competence and psychosocial states have been some of the recognized outcome measurements in this field.
Cleft Palate Speech/ Velopharyngeal Insufficiency Even with timely or early repair of the palate, children with CP+L may still experience cleft-related speech difficulties with a notable proportion of children having continuing velopharyngeal insufficiency (VPI). VPI refers to the presence of incomplete velopharyngeal closure during speech production. Non-articulation parameters of VPI include hypernasality, nasal airflow errors, and grimace, with hypernasality being the hallmark characteristic of VPI. Speech error patterns attributed to continuing VPI may involve what is termed as active compensatory articulatory gestures. For instance, children with cleft palate speech/VPI may have difficulty building up sufficient oral pressure to produce oral targets and may attempt to achieve closure at the level of the glottis resulting in replacement of oral pressure targets with glottal stops or fricatives. The loss of distinctive features and the ability to make meaningful contrasts potentially impacts on global outcomes such as speech understandability and acceptability adversely. Another possible articulation outcome of VPI is weak/nasalized consonants or complete replacement of oral pressure targets with their homorganic nasal counterparts e.g., /t/ replaced with /n/. Speech articulation outcomes unrelated to VPI also include lateralization errors and/or backing errors. A possible etiology of this is the presence of an oronasal fistula. In the latter context for instance, the child attempts to avoid the oronasal fistula by moving the tongue posterior to the fistula.
Direct Speech Intervention Current treatment approaches and the evidence In fact, treatment or treatment efficacy studies in cleft palate/VPI remain limited. A systematic review by Bessell et al. (2013) concluded that there was no sufficient evidence to support the efficacy of specific intervention approaches or techniques. There are only very few studies that have systematically compared different intervention approaches. Consensus on the effectiveness of different approaches remains inconclusive. The heterogeneity of the treatment approaches was also revealed by a subsequent exploratory study by Williams et al. (2021), which identified 49 distinct intervention methods reported by Speech Therapists in the UK, including strategies targeting very young children, such as complexity approaches, cued articulation, and cycles approaches. A more recent systematic review and meta-analysis by Sand et al (2021) also reiterated the low overall quality of evidence in treatment studies addressing cleft/VPI speech disorders, urging the need for interventions that consider the global benefits for clients. Treatment outcomes may include the overall speech intelligibility and communicative participation in everyday settings. With that said, a standardized outcome set is also advocated for future studies to enable a more holistic analysis of the treatment outcomes.
It is of vital importance to implement evidence-based speech intervention to achieve the optimal speech and resonance outcomes. Research has shown that active errors including lateralization, palatalization of fricatives and glottal articulation are habituated and active compensatory articulatory patterns that can be readjusted responsively by speech therapy intervention. On the contrary, passive errors, such as weak and/or nasalized consonants due to VPI, require surgical intervention. The use of glottal articulation may also reflect VPI and both surgical intervention and speech intervention are needed. Historically, speech intervention approaches can be categorized into motor-phonetic (MP) (+/- principles of motor learning) and linguistic-phonological (LP). Motor-phonetic approaches attempt to modify the phonetic errors individually by explicit instruction of the articulatory movement and extensive amount of practice. Motor-phonetic approaches can be undertaken with or without the application of principles of motor learning, which emphasize intensive practice, optimal task difficulty, and variable practice conditions for better retention and generalization. A case study by Hanley et al (2023) demonstrated that MP approach incorporating PML was found to be effective in improving the accuracy of both active and passive cleft speech errors in children with cleft palate. Generalization was also seen in untreated items after 8 weeks of face-to-face twice-weekly sessions. However, the necessity of conducting treatment on the passive cleft type errors remains questionable. Moreover, the generalization effect was solely evident for the targeted individual phonemes.
Increasingly, cleft palate speech/VPI speech disorder is being viewed as a phonological impairment rather than simply an articulation disorder. Howard et al. (2019) also stressed the phonological consequences of mechanical/structural constraints such as VPI in children with CP±L. Linguistic-phonological approaches, on the other hand, refer to phonological rule-based interventions, which attributes the child's speech sound errors to a disordered internal phonological system. Such approaches, target multiple speech sounds or sound classes, and assumes that there would be generalization across phonemes according to their distinctive features. Examples of LP approaches include the minimal pair approach, maximal oppositions and treatment of the empty set, multiple oppositions and Metaphon. A case study by Anderson et al (2024) employed the multiple oppositions approach to treat non-oral and passive CSCs. It revealed that the multiple oppositions intervention, as an LP approach, was found to be effective in improving the speech accuracy and intelligibility at conversational level, with sustained results also observed during the maintenance phase. The results suggested that the LP approach brought about a system-wide change of the phonological system in children with CP±L. Despite these findings, the limitations of small sample sizes in studies warrant caution in interpreting the generalizability of the results. Another randomized control trial with a larger sample size by Alighieri et al (2025) compared the effectiveness of MP and LP approaches (i.e. modified Metaphon approach). They found that while both MP and LP approaches could lead to generalization, LP approach resulted in a more superior generalization effects in terms of the speech outcomes within the same class and the overall percentage of speech accuracy. Nevertheless, it is crucial to recognize that these LP approaches still predominantly regard speech as a linear sequence of segments and speech sound errors as a set of rules. Target selection tends to be focused on individual phonemic errors in the children's phonetic repertoire and selected specific phonemes for treatment.
An Alternative Treatment Framework Application of non-linear phonology Phonological intervention approaches described above are often implemented under a linear paradigm, focusing on isolated phonemes. In contrast, non-linear phonological intervention, developed by Bernhardt and Stemberger (1994), seeks to capture the complexity of speech sounds organized in a hierarchical structure. It is common to observe a range of phonemes or even classes of phonemes being replaced with a single glottal stop or fricative in cleft palate speech. This consequently results in an extensive/ significant collapse of meaningful contrasts in the individual's speech, thereby VPI impacting negatively on speech understandability. As such, the premise of speech intervention would be to maximize overall understandability, acceptability and intelligibility. Target selection in cleft speech intervention would, therefore, be a critical component for successful treatment outcomes. Non-linear phonological intervention views a word as a multi-tiered structure. It emphasizes the broader nature of the phonological system and it believes that the system is more complex than speech sounds alon. With a holistic viewpoint of the speech sound system, the target selection and the treatment direction based on non-linear phonological framework would be different. Different research had investigated the use of non-linear phonology in speech intervention. Some of them had revealed the positive outcomes. It is believed that speech intervention guided by non-linear phonology framework would facilitate wider changes in the phonological system of children with cleft palate speech / VPI speech disorder. Subsequently, a more significant generalization effect across sound classes would be expected so that the overall speech intelligibility would be maximized. Yet, the application of non-linear phonology in the field of cleft/VPI population is yet to be adopted widely.
Research Questions
Indeed, SLPs reported a high degree of variability in selecting treatment approaches in their practice for children with CP±L. Such discrepancies may also be attributed to the lack of consensus in target selection and subsequent treatment directions. In view of this, the present study aims to conduct a randomized controlled trial to investigate the effectiveness of non-linear phonological intervention approach in improving speech outcomes in Cantonese-speaking children with CP±L and compare the effectiveness of LP approaches based on linear and non-linear phonology. The study will also further examine the phonological skills and functional impact on the individuals with CP±L after speech intervention. The followings are the proposed research questions:
(i) Is non-linear phonological intervention effective in improving speech outcomes in Cantonese-speaking children and adolescences with CP±L? Ho: Non-linear phonological intervention has no effect on improving speech outcomes in Cantonese-speaking children and adolescences with CP±L.
H1: Non-linear phonological intervention is effective in improving speech outcomes in Cantonese-speaking children and adolescences with CP±L.
(ii) Is a speech intervention approach based on non-linear phonological framework more effective in improving speech outcomes than the one based on linear phonology in Cantonese-speaking children and adolescences with CP±L? Ho: A speech intervention approach based on a non-linear phonological framework is not more effective in improving speech outcomes than one based on linear phonology in Cantonese-speaking children and adolescences with CP±L.
H1: A speech intervention approach based on a non-linear phonological framework is more effective in improving speech outcomes than one based on linear phonology in Cantonese-speaking children and adolescences with CP±L.
(iii) Are the phonological skills improved after phonological intervention in both groups? Ho: Phonological skills do not show significant improvement after phonological intervention in both groups of participants.
H1: Phonological skills show significant improvement after phonological intervention in both groups of participants.
(iv) Are the patient-reported outcomes also improved with the speech outcomes followed by the treatment? Ho: The patient-reported outcomes are not improved with the enhanced articulatory accuracy after treatment.
H1: The patient-reported outcomes are improved with the enhanced articulatory accuracy after treatment.
123 studies on the registry are indexed under Cleft Palate; 35 are open to participants now.
This study's planned enrollment of 12 is below the median of 44 across 77 interventional studies indexed under Cleft Palate.
Browse Cleft Palate studies →Chinese University of Hong Kong is the lead sponsor of 1,454 studies on the registry; 474 are open to participants now.
Of its 6 completed or terminated interventional studies of FDA-regulated products, 0 (0%) have results posted.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.
Exclusion Criteria:
Behavioral: Non-linear based phonological speech intervention
Behavioral: Linear-based speech intervention
They will receive intervention after the study phase
Traditionally, phonological speech intervention approaches (including the ones with children with cleft lip and palate) are often implemented under a linear paradigm, focusing on isolated phonemes. Non-linear phonological intervention, developed by Bernhardt and Stemberger (1994), seeks to capture the complexity of speech sounds organized in a hierarchical structure. It views a word as a multi-tiered structure and emphasizes the broader nature of the phonological system and it believes that the system is more complex than speech sounds alone. With a holistic viewpoint of the speech sound system, the target selection and the treatment direction based on non-linear phonological framework would be different. The premise of speech intervention would be to maximize overall understandability, acceptability and intelligibility. Target selection in cleft speech intervention would, therefore, be a critical component for successful treatment outcomes.
Linear-based phonological approaches refer to speech interventions that target multiple phonemes according to the child's production of speech errors. Such approaches assume that there would be generalization across phonemes according to their distinctive features. Examples of linear-based approaches include the minimal pair approach, maximal oppositions and treatment of the empty set, multiple oppositions and Metaphon.
Perceputal Assessment of Cleft Speech - Cantonese: Understandability
A scale measuring how understandable the speech is. 0 = Within normal limits - Speech is always easy to understand; 3 = Severe - Speech is hard to understand most or all of the time
Time frame: One week before the intervention, one week, one month and three months after the intervention
Perceptual Assessment of Cleft Speech - Cantonese: Acceptability
A scale that measures how acceptable the speech is. 0 = Within normal limits - Speech is normal ; 3 = Severe - Speech deviates from normal to a severe degree
Time frame: One week before the intervention, one week, one month and three months after the intervention
Perceptual Assessment of Cleft Speech - Cantonese: Hypernasality
A scale that measures how hypernasal the speech is. 0 = Within normal limits; 3 = Severe - Increased nasality heard on high and low vowels while some lose their identity
Time frame: One week before the intervention, one week, one month and three months after the intervention
Perceptual Assessment of Cleft Speech - Cantonese: Hyponasality
A scale that measures how hyponasal the speech is. 0 = Within normal limits/None; 1 = Present
Time frame: One week before the intervention, one week, one month and three months after the intervention
Perceptual Assessment of Cleft Speech - Cantonese: Audible nasal emission
A scale that measures whether audible nasal emission is present. 0 = Absent; 2 = Frequently heard, \> 5 instances out of 50 high pressure consonants
Time frame: One week before the intervention, one week, one month and three months after the intervention
Perceptual Assessment of Cleft Speech - Cantonese: Nasal turbulence
A scale that measures whether nasal turbulence is present. 0 = Absent; 2 = Frequently heard, \> 5 instances out of 50 high pressure consonants
Time frame: One week before the intervention, one week, one month and three months after the intervention
Perceptual Assessment of Cleft Speech - Cantonese: Cleft speech errors
Transcription of speech errors during the speech test. There are in total 4 types of cleft speech characteristics: (1) Anterior Oral; (2) Posterior Oral; (3) Non-Oral; and (4) Passive
Time frame: One week before the intervention, one week, one month and three months after the intervention
Focus on the Outcomes of Communication Under Six" (Traditional Chinese - Hong Kong version) (FOCUS©-TC HK)
FOCUS©-TC HK measures communicative participation. It evaluates how effectively a child uses communication to interact, play, and participate in everyday real-world activities at home, at school, and in the community. FOCUS©-TC HK is a questionnaire (usually 50 items) completed by parents or caregivers, who rate the child's communication behaviors on a 7-point scale. A higher Total Score indicates better communicative participation (max = 350 scores) A lower Total Score indicates that the child's speech or language difficulties are significantly impacting their daily social interactions and quality of life (min = 50 scores)
Time frame: One week before the intervention, one week, one month and three months after the intervention
CLEFT-Q - Speech Function scale score
The CLEFT-Q is a scientifically validated questionnaire used worldwide by doctors and speech therapists. The CLEFT-Q is a Patient-Reported Outcome Measure (PROM)-meaning it asks the child or young adult directly how they feel about their own life, appearance, and speech. This scale measures how the child perceives the physical clarity and mechanics of their own speech. In standard CLEFT-Q scoring, the raw answers are converted into a score from 0 to 100. For all CLEFT-Q scales, a higher score always indicates a better outcome (i.e., better function or better quality of life).
Time frame: One week before the intervention, one week, one month and three months after the intervention
CLEFT-Q - Speech Distress Scale Score
The CLEFT-Q is a scientifically validated questionnaire used worldwide by doctors and speech therapists. The CLEFT-Q is a Patient-Reported Outcome Measure (PROM)-meaning it asks the child or young adult directly how they feel about their own life, appearance, and speech. This scale measures the emotional burden and negative feelings caused by their speech difficulties. In standard CLEFT-Q scoring, the raw answers are converted into a score from 0 to 100. For all CLEFT-Q scales, a higher score always indicates a better outcome (i.e., better function or better quality of life).
Time frame: One week before the intervention, one week, one month and three months after the intervention
CLEFT-Q - Psychological Scale Score
The CLEFT-Q is a scientifically validated questionnaire used worldwide by doctors and speech therapists. The CLEFT-Q is a Patient-Reported Outcome Measure (PROM)-meaning it asks the child or young adult directly how they feel about their own life, appearance, and speech. This scale looks at the child's overall emotional well-being and self-esteem. In standard CLEFT-Q scoring, the raw answers are converted into a score from 0 to 100. For all CLEFT-Q scales, a higher score always indicates a better outcome (i.e., better function or better quality of life).
Time frame: One week before the intervention, one week, one month and three months after the intervention
Percentage correct consonants-revised (PCC-R)
It calculates how many consonants the child pronounced correctly out of the total number of consonants they attempted. The "Revised" (R) version counts distortions (like a slight lisp or mild nasal emission) as "correct," and only penalizes major errors like completely omitting a sound or substituting it with a completely different sound. 100% = perfectly correct production. Lower scores (e.g., \< 50%) = Indicates a severe speech sound disorder where the child is dropping many sounds or swapping them out entirely, making them very hard to understand.
Time frame: One week before the intervention, one week, one month and three months after the intervention
Percentage Correct Places (PCP)
It evaluates if the child is making the sound in the correct place of articulation (e.g., using their lips for "p" or "m", or the back of their tongue for "k" or "g"), regardless of whether the airflow or voicing was perfectly correct. 100% = perfectly correct production. Lower scores (e.g., \< 50%) = Indicates a severe speech sound disorder where the child is making the sounds with a wrong place of articulation.
Time frame: One week before the intervention, one week, one month and three months after the intervention
Percentage Correct Manners (PCM)
It evaluates if the child is using the correct manner of articulation (e.g., making a "stop" sound where air bursts out, a "fricative" where air hisses, or a "nasal" where air goes through the nose). 100% = perfectly correct production. Lower scores (e.g., \< 50%) = Indicates a severe speech sound disorder where the child is making the sounds with a wrong manner of articulation.
Time frame: One week before the intervention, one week, one month and three months after the intervention
Intelligibility in Context Scale - Traditional Chinese version (ICS-TC)
The ICS is a 7-item questionnaire that asks parents to rate how well different groups of people (ranging from immediate family members to complete strangers) understand their child's speech. Each of the 7 questions is rated on a 5-point scale (from 1 = "Never" to 5 = "Always"). The total score will be converted to an average score. A higher score indicates excellent speech intelligibility. It means the child's speech is easily and consistently understood by everyone, regardless of whether they are talking to their parents, teachers, or strangers. (max = 5) A lower score indicates severe intelligibility issues. It means that almost no one can understand what the child is saying in daily situations. (min = 1)
Time frame: One week before the intervention, one week, one month and three months after the intervention
Percent scores of the informal tasks on phonological awareness
We would use a number of informal tests to evaluate the phonological awareness of the partipants. The test would be extracted from previous literature. The total score will be converted into percentage score in which a higher score will indicate a better phonological awareness. (Max = 100%; Min = 0%).
Time frame: One week before the intervention, one week, one month and three months after the intervention
Plan to share: No
Eligibility is decided by the study team. Share this record with your doctor or contact the team directly.
No contact was published for this record. The registry link below has the sponsor’s details.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.
Chinese University of Hong Kong →