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
  • [31] What is a State of the Science Research Review?
    Dodgson, Joan E.
    JOURNAL OF HUMAN LACTATION, 2023, 39 (01) : 23 - 29
  • [32] THE MEDICAL REVIEW ARTICLE - STATE OF THE SCIENCE
    MULROW, CD
    ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 1987, 106 (03) : 485 - 488
  • [33] THE MEDICAL REVIEW ARTICLE - STATE OF THE SCIENCE
    MULROW, CD
    CLINICAL RESEARCH, 1987, 35 (01): : A91 - A91
  • [34] Anthophyllite asbestos: state of the science review
    Gaffney, Shannon H.
    Grespin, Matthew
    Garnick, Lindsey
    Drechsel, Derek A.
    Hazan, Rebecca
    Paustenbach, Dennis J.
    Simmons, Brooke D.
    JOURNAL OF APPLIED TOXICOLOGY, 2017, 37 (01) : 38 - 49
  • [35] MEASURING THE GROWTH OF SCIENCE - REVIEW OF INDICATORS OF SCIENTIFIC GROWTH
    GILBERT, GN
    SCIENTOMETRICS, 1978, 1 (01) : 9 - 34
  • [36] A Comprehensive Review of Instruments Measuring Attitudes Toward Science
    Toma, Radu Bogdan
    Lederman, Norman G.
    RESEARCH IN SCIENCE EDUCATION, 2022, 52 (02) : 567 - 582
  • [37] A Comprehensive Review of Instruments Measuring Attitudes Toward Science
    Radu Bogdan Toma
    Norman G. Lederman
    Research in Science Education, 2022, 52 : 567 - 582
  • [38] The Impact of Respiratory Exercises on Voice Outcomes: A Systematic Review of the Literature
    Desjardins, Maude
    Bonilha, Heather Shaw
    JOURNAL OF VOICE, 2020, 34 (04) : 648.e1 - 648.e39
  • [39] Measuring Mental Fatigue in Construction: State of the Science and Future Opportunities
    Uddin, S. M. Jamil
    Tabassum, Nafisa
    Ovid, Anto
    Alsharef, Abdullah
    Albert, Alex
    CONSTRUCTION RESEARCH CONGRESS 2024: HEALTH AND SAFETY, WORKFORCE, AND EDUCATION, 2024, : 688 - 698
  • [40] Measuring the longitudinal course of voice hearing under psychological interventions: A systematic review
    Loizou, Sofia
    Fowler, David
    Hayward, Mark
    CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY REVIEW, 2022, 97