Summary
Introduction
The VHI-10 is a patient-reported outcome measure used to record the patient's perception
of impairment or handicap due to a voice problem. Scores above 11 are abnormal and
indicate voice handicap. Amongst a treatment-seeking population in a large tertiary
voice center, scores below the VHI-10 cutoff score of 11 were frequently noted. The
aim of this study was to examine the number of people seeking voice therapy for dysphonia
who scored below the established VHI-10 cutoff score.
Methods
A retrospective chart review was completed of all patients attending a voice evaluation
with a speech-language pathologist by referral of a laryngologist between February
1, 2017 and February 28, 2018. Patients aged 18+ years with a primary diagnosis of
dysphonia were included. Sex, age, primary diagnosis, and VHI-10 score were recorded.
Patients were categorized as scoring above or below the cutoff score of 11. Logistic
regression was performed to determine the variables that predicted scoring below the
VHI-10 cutoff.
Results
A total of 225 patients were included. There were 91 males (40.4%) and 134 females
(59.6%). Sixty-one patients (27.1%) scored below the VHI-10 cutoff of 11 at their
evaluation. Younger age and male sex were predictive of scoring below the VHI-10 cutoff
score. Diagnosis was not predictive of scoring above or below the cutoff score.
Conclusion
A notable proportion of treatment-seeking patients scored below the VHI-10 cutoff
of 11. If treatment-seeking behavior is related to patient perception of voice handicap,
one would expect fewer patients to score below the cutoff. Possible explanations might
include that the VHI-10 did not sufficiently capture patient perception of handicap
in the study population or the published cutoff score may be too high. Alternatively,
another motivator besides handicap may have spurred treatment-seeking behavior. Given
these findings, additional or alternative patient-reported outcome measures may be
useful in developing a complete clinical picture regarding voice handicap.
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 accessOne-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 VoiceAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Recommended protocols for instrumental assessment of voice: ASHA expert panel to develop a protocol for instrumental assessment of vocal function.AJSLP. 2018; 27: 1-19
- Maximising the impact of patient reported outcome assessment for patients and society.BMJ. 2019; 364: 1-8https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k5267
- Voice-related patient-reported outcome measures: a systematic review of instrument development and validation.JSLHR. 2017; 60: 62-88
- Development and validation of the Voice Handicap Index-10.Laryngoscope. 2004; 114: 1549-1556https://doi.org/10.1097/00005537-200409000-00009
- The VHI-10 and VHI item reduction translations—are we all speaking the same language?.J Voice. 2017; 31: 250.e1-250.e7https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2016.07.016
- The Voice Handicap Index (VHI): development and validation.Am J Speech-Language Pathol. 1997; 6: 66-69https://doi.org/10.1044/1058-0360.0603.66
- Normative values for the Voice Handicap Index-10.J Voice. 2012; 26: 462-465https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2011.04.006
- The role of quality-of-life instruments in predicting voice therapy dropout.Laryngoscope. 2018; 128: 2832-2837https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.27269
- Is a voice-specific instrument more indicative of stroboscopy results than common clinical queries?.Laryngoscope. 2020; 130: 992-999https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.28207
- Voice and stroboscopic characteristics in transgender patients seeking gender-affirming voice care.Laryngoscope. 2020; : 1-7https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.28932
Misono S, Marmor S, Roy N, et al. Factors influencing likelihood of voice therapy attendance: report from the CHEER network. 2018;156:518-524. doi:10.1177/0194599816679941.Factors
- Respiratory muscle strength training to improve vocal function in patients with presbyphonia.J Voice. 2020; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2020.06.006
- Emergence of item response modeling in instrument development and data analysis.Med Care. 2000; 38: 60-65
- Possible cross-cultural differences in the perception of impact of voice disorders.J Voice. 2011; 25: 348-353https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2009.10.005
- Efficiency and cutoff values of self-assessment instruments on the impact of a voice problem.J Voice. 2016; 30: 506.e9-506.e18https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2015.05.022
- Effects of a variably ccluded face mask on the aerodynamic and acoustic characteristics of connected speech in patients with and without voice disorders.J Voice. 2018; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2018.03.002
- Efficacy of Conversation Training Therapy for patients with benign vocal fold lesions and muscle tension dysphonia compared to historical matched control patients.JSLHR. 2019; 62: 4062-4079https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_JSLHR-S-19-0136
Article info
Publication history
Published online: January 12, 2021
Accepted:
December 14,
2020
Footnotes
Disclosures: No disclosures
Identification
Copyright
© 2020 The Voice Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
