We have located links that may give you full text access.
Reliability and Validity of Speech Evaluation in Adductor Spasmodic Dysphonia.
Journal of Voice 2018 September
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate speech in patients with adductor spasmodic dysphonia (ADSD) by perceptual evaluations and acoustic measures, and to examine the reliability and validity of these measures.
METHODS: Twenty-four patients with ADSD and 24 healthy volunteers were included in the study. Speech materials consisted of three sentences constructed from serial voiced syllables to elicit abductor voice breaks. Three otolaryngologists rated the degree of voice symptoms using a visual analog scale (VAS). VAS sheets with five 100-mm horizontal lines were given to each rater. The ends of the lines were labeled normal vs severe, and the five lines were labeled as overall severity of each of the four speech symptoms (strangulation, interruption, tremor and strained speech). Nine words were selected for acoustic analysis, and abnormal acoustic events were classified into one of the three categories. To evaluate the intra- and inter-rater and intermeasurer reliabilities of the VAS scores or acoustic measures, Pearson r correlations were calculated. To examine the validity of perceptual evaluations and acoustic measures, the sensitivity and the specificity were calculated.
RESULTS: Pearson r correlation coefficients for overall severity showed the highest intra- and inter-rater reliabilities. For acoustic events, the intrameasurer reliabilities were r = .645 (frequency shifts), r = .969 (aperiodic segments), and r = 1.0 (phonation breaks), and the intermeasurer reliability ranged from r = .102 to r = 1.0. Perceptual evaluation showed high sensitivity (91.7%) and specificity (100%), whereas acoustic analysis showed low sensitivity (70.8%) and high specificity (100%).
CONCLUSION: Both perceptual evaluation and acoustic measures alone were found likely to overlook patients with true ADSD.
METHODS: Twenty-four patients with ADSD and 24 healthy volunteers were included in the study. Speech materials consisted of three sentences constructed from serial voiced syllables to elicit abductor voice breaks. Three otolaryngologists rated the degree of voice symptoms using a visual analog scale (VAS). VAS sheets with five 100-mm horizontal lines were given to each rater. The ends of the lines were labeled normal vs severe, and the five lines were labeled as overall severity of each of the four speech symptoms (strangulation, interruption, tremor and strained speech). Nine words were selected for acoustic analysis, and abnormal acoustic events were classified into one of the three categories. To evaluate the intra- and inter-rater and intermeasurer reliabilities of the VAS scores or acoustic measures, Pearson r correlations were calculated. To examine the validity of perceptual evaluations and acoustic measures, the sensitivity and the specificity were calculated.
RESULTS: Pearson r correlation coefficients for overall severity showed the highest intra- and inter-rater reliabilities. For acoustic events, the intrameasurer reliabilities were r = .645 (frequency shifts), r = .969 (aperiodic segments), and r = 1.0 (phonation breaks), and the intermeasurer reliability ranged from r = .102 to r = 1.0. Perceptual evaluation showed high sensitivity (91.7%) and specificity (100%), whereas acoustic analysis showed low sensitivity (70.8%) and high specificity (100%).
CONCLUSION: Both perceptual evaluation and acoustic measures alone were found likely to overlook patients with true ADSD.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment.Clinical Research in Cardiology : Official Journal of the German Cardiac Society 2024 April 12
Proximal versus distal diuretics in congestive heart failure.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2024 Februrary 30
Efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy in chronic insomnia: A review of clinical guidelines and case reports.Mental Health Clinician 2023 October
World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management.American Journal of Hematology 2024 March 30
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app