Advertisement

Construct and Discriminant Validity of the Persian Version of the Consensus Auditory Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V)

Published:October 06, 2020DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2020.09.023

      Summary

      Purpose

      Five dimensions of voice assessment are considered as visual evaluation, videostroboscopy, acoustic, aerodynamic, patient-based, and auditory-perceptual. Auditory-perceptual voice assessment scales are the standard scales for clinicians to document voice therapy outcomes in dysphonic patients. The primary objective of the present study was to investigate the construct and discriminant validities of the Persian Version of the CAPE-V (ATSHA). A secondary objective was to determine the differences between experienced and inexperienced raters in the auditory-perceptual assessment of voice.

      Method

      Forty normal and forty individuals with dysphonia were rated by five experienced and five inexperienced raters. Pathological subgroups were vocal fold nodules, vocal fold polyps, unilateral vocal fold paralysis (UVFP), and Reinke's edema. The differences between normal and pathologic groups were observed by independent t tests for all perceptual parameters (P < 0.05). Construct validity was documented for the scale of interest. The Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney comparisons were used to examine discriminant validity.

      Results

      Findings of these tests showed that scores of all pathological subgroups were significantly different except for the parameter of "strain" in sustained vowels (P < 0.05). Results of the Wilcoxon Matched-Pairs Signed Rank Test indicated that experienced and inexperienced raters were significantly different in auditory-perceptual judgments of voice.

      Conclusion

      It seems that the Persian Version of the CAPE-V is a consistent predictor of normal and pathological voices. Moreover, we found that experienced listeners have different auditory-perceptual skills in evaluation of voice that make them more precise than inexperienced listeners.

      Key Words

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Journal of Voice
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Kreiman J
        • Gerratt BR
        • Kempster G
        • et al.
        Perceptual evaluation of voice quality: review, tutorial, and a framework for future research.
        J Speech Hear Res. 1993; 36 (PubMed:8450660): 21-31
        • Gerrat B
        • Kreiman J
        • Borroso N
        • et al.
        Comparing internal and external standards in voice quality judgment.
        J Speech Hear Res. 1993; 36 (PubMed:8450655): 14-15
        • Zraick RI
        • Kempster GB
        • Connor NP
        • et al.
        Establishing validity of the Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V).
        Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2011; 20 (PubMed:19204393): 14-22https://doi.org/10.1044/1058-0360(2010/09-0105)
        • Oates J
        Auditory-perceptual evaluation of disordered voice quality: pros, cons and future directions.
        Folia PhoniatrLogop. 2009; 61 (PubMed:19204393): 49-54https://doi.org/10.1159/000200768
        • Kelchner LN
        • Brehm SB
        • Weinrich B
        • et al.
        Perceptual evaluation of severe pediatric voice disorders rater reliability using consensus auditory perceptual evaluation of voice.
        J Voice. 2010; 24 (PubMed:19135856): 441-443https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2008.09.004
        • Mozzanica F
        • Ginocchio D
        • Borghi E
        • et al.
        Reliability and validity of the Italian version of the Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V).
        Folia Phoniatr Logop. 2013; 65 (PubMed:24714558): 257-265https://doi.org/10.1159/000356479
        • Shrivastav R
        The use of an auditory model in predicting perceptual ratings of breathy voice quality.
        J Voice. 2003; 17 (PubMed:14587619): 502-512
        • Shrivastav R
        • Sapienza CM
        • Nandur V
        Application of psychometric theory to the measurement of voice quality using rating scales.
        J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2005; 48 (PubMed:15989395): 323-339https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2005/022)
        • Dejonckere PH
        • Obbens C
        • de Moor GM
        • et al.
        Perceptual evaluation of dysphonia: reliability and relevance.
        Folia Phoniatr. 1993; 45 (PubMed:8325573): 76-83
        • Krom G
        Consistency and reliability of voice quality ratings for different types of speech fragments.
        J Speech Hear Res. 1994; 37 (PubMed:7823566): 985-1000
        • Karnell MP
        • Melton SD
        • Childes JM
        • et al.
        Reliability of clinician-based (GRBAS and CAPE-V) and patient-based (V-RQOL and IPVI) documentation of voice disorders.
        J Voice. 2006; 21 (PubMed:16822648): 576-590https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2006.05.001
        • American Speech-Language-Hearing Association
        Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V).
        American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, Rockville Pike, MD2003 (Division2, voice and voice disorders)
        • Kempster GB
        • Gerratt BR
        • Verdolini Abbott K
        • et al.
        Consensus auditory-perceptual evaluation of voice. development of a standardized clinical protocol.
        Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2009; 18 (PubMed:18930908): 124-132https://doi.org/10.1044/1058-0360(2008/08-0017)
        • Carding PN
        • Wilson JA
        • MacKenzie K
        • et al.
        Measuring voice outcomes: state of the science review.
        J Laryngol Otol. 2009; 123 (PubMed:19454129): 823-829https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022215109005398
        • Cronbach LJ
        • Meehl PE
        Construct validity in psychological tests.
        Psychol Bull. 1955; 52 (PubMed:13245896): 281-302
        • Cook DA
        • Beckman TJ
        Current concepts in validity and reliability for psychometric instruments: theory and application.
        Am J Med. 2006; 119 (166.e7–166.e16PubMed:16443422)https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2005.10.036
        • Carter R
        • Lubinsky J
        • Domholdt E
        Rehabilitation Research, Principles and Applications.
        Elsevier Saunders, 2009: 245-255
        • Salary Majd N
        • Khoddami M
        • Drinnan M
        • et al.
        Validity and rater reliability of Persian version of the consensus auditory perceptual evaluation of voice.
        Audiol. 2014; 23: 65-74
        • De Bodt MS
        • Wuyts FL
        • Van de Heyning PH
        • et al.
        Test-retest study of the GRBAS scale: influence of experience and professional background on perceptual rating of voice quality.
        J Voice. 1997; 11 (PubMed:9075179): 74-80
        • Bele IV
        Reliability in perceptual analysis of voice quality.
        J Voice. 2005; 19 (PubMed:16301102): 561-570https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2004.08.008
        • Eadie TL
        • Kapsner M
        • Rosenzoweig J
        • et al.
        The role of experience on judgment of dysphonia.
        J Voice. 2010; 24: 565-566https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2008.12.005
        • Helou LB
        • Solomon NP
        • Henry LR
        • et al.
        The role of listener experience on Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V) ratings of post-thyroidectomy voice.
        Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2010; 19 (PubMed:20484704): 251-255https://doi.org/10.1044/1058-0360(2010/09-0012)
        • Nemr K
        • Simoes-Zenari M
        • Ferro Cordeiro G
        • et al.
        GRBAS and CAPE-V scales: high reliability and consensus when applied at different times.
        J Voice. 2012; 26 (812-e.17-e.22PubMed:23026732)https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2012.03.005
        • Dejonckere PH
        • Bradley P
        • Clemente P
        A basic protocol for functional assessment of voice pathology, especially for investigating the efficacy of (phonosurgical) treatments and evaluating new assessment techniques. Guideline elaborated by the committee on phoniatrics of the European Laryngological Society (ELS).
        Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2001; 258 (PubMed:11307610): 77-82
        • Eadie TL
        • Baylor CR
        The effect of perceptual training on inexperienced listeners’ judgments of dysphonic voice.
        J Voice. 2006; 20 (PubMed:16324823): 527-544https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2005.08.007
        • Ling Lu F
        • Matteson
        Speech tasks and inter-rater reliability in perceptual voice evaluation.
        J Voice. 2014; 28: 725-732https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2014.01.018
        • Kreiman J
        • Gerratt BR
        Sources of listener disagreement in voice quality assessment.
        J Acoust Soc Am. 2000; 108: 1867-1876
        • Awan SN
        • Lawson LL
        The effect of anchor modality on the reliability of vocal severity ratings.
        J Voice. 2009; 23 (PubMed:18346869): 345-350https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2007.10.006
        • Khoramshahi H
        • Khatoonabadi AZ
        • Khoddami SM
        • Dabirmoghaddam P
        • Ansari NN
        Responsiveness of Persian Version of Consensus Auditory Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V), Persian Version of Voice Handicap Index (VHI), and Praat in Vocal Mass Lesions with Muscle Tension Dysphonia.
        J Voice. 2018; 32: 21-30https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2017.08.008
        • Khatoonabadi AZ
        • Khoramshahi H
        • Khoddami SM
        • Dabirmoghaddam P
        • Ansari NN
        Patient-Based Assessment of Effectiveness of Voice Therapy in Vocal Mass Lesions with Secondary Muscle Tension Dysphonia.
        Iran J Otorhinolaryngol. 2018; 30: 131-137
        • Ataee E
        • Khoramshahi H
        • Naderifar E
        • Dastoorpour M
        Relation Between Dysphonia Severity Index (DSI) and Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V).
        J Voice. 2020; (In press)