Measuring voice outcomes: state of the science review

被引:148
|
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
来源
JOURNAL OF LARYNGOLOGY AND OTOLOGY | 2009年 / 123卷 / 08期
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 50 条
  • [21] A voice for science
    Wadman, Meredith
    NATURE, 2011, 479 (7371) : 28 - 31
  • [22] Measuring airway clearance outcomes in bronchiectasis: a review
    Franks, Lisa J.
    Walsh, James R.
    Hall, Kathleen
    Morris, Norman R.
    EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY REVIEW, 2020, 29 (156):
  • [23] Measuring the psychological outcomes of falling: A systematic review
    Jorstad, EC
    Hauer, K
    Becker, C
    Lamb, SE
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN GERIATRICS SOCIETY, 2005, 53 (03) : 501 - 510
  • [24] MEASURING OF VOICE AREA
    RAUHUT, A
    STURZEBECHER, E
    WAGNER, H
    SEIDNER, W
    FOLIA PHONIATRICA, 1979, 31 (02): : 119 - 124
  • [25] Pediatric Critical Care Outcomes: State of the Science
    Perry-Eaddy, Mallory A.
    Dervan, Leslie A.
    Manning, Joseph C.
    Watson, R. Scott
    Curley, Martha A. Q.
    CRITICAL CARE CLINICS, 2023, 39 (02) : 309 - 326
  • [26] Nursing-sensitive outcomes: State of the science
    Utz, SW
    FAMILY & COMMUNITY HEALTH, 2006, 29 (02) : 158 - 158
  • [27] Assessing the outcomes of state science and technology organizations
    Melkers, J
    ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY, 2004, 18 (02) : 186 - 201
  • [28] Spatial Science and Network Science: Review and Outcomes of a Complex Relationship
    Ducruet, Cesar
    Beauguitte, Laurent
    NETWORKS & SPATIAL ECONOMICS, 2014, 14 (3-4): : 297 - 316
  • [29] Spatial Science and Network Science: Review and Outcomes of a Complex Relationship
    César Ducruet
    Laurent Beauguitte
    Networks and Spatial Economics, 2014, 14 : 297 - 316
  • [30] Flash drought: A state of the science review
    Christian, Jordan I.
    Hobbins, Mike
    Hoell, Andrew
    Otkin, Jason A.
    Ford, Trent W.
    Cravens, Amanda E.
    Powlen, Kathryn A.
    Wang, Hailan
    Mishra, Vimal
    WILEY INTERDISCIPLINARY REVIEWS-WATER, 2024, 11 (03):