Measuring voice outcomes: state of the science review

被引:147
作者
Carding, P. N. [1 ]
Wilson, J. A. [1 ]
MacKenzie, K. [2 ]
Deary, I. J. [3 ]
机构
[1] Freeman Rd Hosp, Dept Otolaryngol Head & Neck Surg, Newcastle Upon Tyne NE7 7DN, Tyne & Wear, England
[2] Royal Infirm, Dept Otolaryngol Head & Neck Surg, Glasgow G31 2ER, Lanark, Scotland
[3] Univ Edinburgh, Dept Psychol, Ctr Cognit Ageing & Cognit Epidemiol, MRC, Edinburgh EH8 9YL, Midlothian, Scotland
基金
英国医学研究理事会;
关键词
Dysphonia; Voice Outcomes; Voice Disorders; Voice Quality; Voice Handicap; Self-Reported Voice Measures; PERCEPTUAL EVALUATION; HANDICAP INDEX-10; ACOUSTIC MEASURES; SYMPTOM SCALE; GRBAS SCALE; RELIABILITY; DYSPHONIA; QUALITY; VALIDITY; JITTER;
D O I
10.1017/S0022215109005398
中图分类号
R76 [耳鼻咽喉科学];
学科分类号
100213 ;
摘要
Researchers evaluating voice disorder interventions currently have a plethora of voice outcome measurement tools from which to choose. Faced with such a wide choice, it Would be beneficial to establish a clear rationale to guide selection. This article reviews the published literature Oil the three main areas of voice outcome assessment: (1) perceptual rating of voice quality, (2) acoustic measurement of the speech signal and (3) patient self-reporting of voice problems. We analysed the published reliability, validity, sensitivity to change and utility of the common outcome measurement tools in each area. From the data, we suggest that routine voice outcome measurement should include (1) an expert rating of voice quality (using the Grade-Roughness-Breathiness-Asthenia-Strain rating scale) and (2) a short self-reporting tool (either the Vocal Performance Questionnaire or the Vocal Handicap Index 10). These measures have high validity, the best reported reliability to date, good sensitivity to change data and excellent utility ratings. However. their application and administration require attention to detail. Acoustic measurement has arguable validity and poor reliability data at the present time. Other areas of voice outcome measurement (e.g. stroboscopy and aerodynamic phonatory measurements) require similarly detailed research and analysis.
引用
收藏
页码:823 / 829
页数:7
相关论文
共 33 条
  • [21] Fundamental frequency histograms measured by electroglottography during speech: A pilot study for standardization
    Kania, TE
    Hartl, DM
    Hans, D
    Maeda, S
    Vaissiere, J
    Brasnu, DF
    [J]. JOURNAL OF VOICE, 2006, 20 (01) : 18 - 24
  • [22] The reliability and validity of patient self-rating of their own voice quality
    Lee, M
    Drinnan, M
    Carding, P
    [J]. CLINICAL OTOLARYNGOLOGY, 2005, 30 (04) : 357 - 361
  • [23] OLSWANG L, 1998, TREATMENT EFFICACY R
  • [24] COMPARING RELIABILITY OF PERCEPTUAL RATINGS OF ROUGHNESS AND ACOUSTIC MEASURES OF JITTER
    RABINOV, CR
    KREIMAN, J
    GERRATT, BR
    BIELAMOWICZ, S
    [J]. JOURNAL OF SPEECH AND HEARING RESEARCH, 1995, 38 (01): : 26 - 32
  • [25] Development and validation of the Voice Handicap Index-10
    Rosen, CA
    Lee, AS
    Osborne, J
    Zullo, T
    Murry, T
    [J]. LARYNGOSCOPE, 2004, 114 (09) : 1549 - 1556
  • [26] SCHUAVETTI N, 1997, EVALUATING RES COMMU
  • [27] Optimising outcome assessment of voice interventions, II: sensitivity to change of self-reported and observer-rated measures
    Steen, I. N.
    MacKenzie, K.
    Carding, P. N.
    Webb, A.
    Deary, I. J.
    Wilson, J. A.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF LARYNGOLOGY AND OTOLOGY, 2008, 122 (01) : 46 - 51
  • [28] Optimising outcome assessment of voice interventions, I: reliability and validity of three self-reported scales
    Webb, A. L.
    Carding, P. N.
    Deary, I. J.
    MacKenzie, K.
    Steen, I. N.
    Wilson, J. A.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF LARYNGOLOGY AND OTOLOGY, 2007, 121 (08) : 763 - 767
  • [29] The reliability of three perceptual evaluation scales for dysphonia
    Webb, AL
    Carding, PN
    Deary, IJ
    MacKenzie, K
    Steen, N
    Wilson, JA
    [J]. EUROPEAN ARCHIVES OF OTO-RHINO-LARYNGOLOGY, 2004, 261 (08) : 429 - 434
  • [30] Wilson D.K., 1987, VOICE PROBLEMS CHILD, V3rd