Advertisement

Cross-cultural Adaptation of the Consensus Auditory-perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V) Into Malay: A Validity Study

      SUMMARY

      Auditory-perceptual rating of voice is one component of voice evaluation, and the CAPE-V is one of the tools for this purpose. Because of its advantages, the CAPE-V has been adapted into several languages. Accordingly, the adaptation of the CAPE-V into Malay is essential for its utility among the Malaysian population, which this study aimed to accomplish. This study involved translating the CAPE-V into Malay, termed the Malay CAPE-V, followed by establishing its validity. The translation processes (ie, forward translation and backward translation) involved four different translators ie, three speech-language therapists (SLTs), and one linguist with at least 14 years of experience. Most items were similarly translated, except for a few, which were subsequently accepted as similar, following consensus among the translators. In the examination of content validity, two raters (ie, SLTs) with at least 12 years of clinical experience reviewed and scored the tested items. Given that the scale-level content validity index average value (S-CVI/Ave) was above the acceptable level, all items were retained. The examination of construct validity and concurrent validity involved ratings of voice samples recorded from 38 participants, comprising 19 individuals with normal and disordered voices, respectively. The ratings were performed by three raters (ie, SLTs) with at least 12 years of clinical experience. For the construct validity, the Mann-Whitney U test indicated significantly higher scores of the vocal parameters of the Malay CAPE-V for the disordered voice group than for the normal voice group. Meanwhile, for the concurrent validity, the Spearman correlation indicated that all relationships between the scores of the vocal parameters of the Malay CAPE-V and GRBAS Scale were significant, with most of them achieving a very strong positive correlation. The results demonstrated that the Malay CAPE-V is a valid tool for an auditory-perceptual rating of voice among the Malaysian population.

      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

        • Nemr K
        • Simões-Zenari M
        • De Souza GS
        • et al.
        Correlation of the dysphonia severity index (DSI), consensus auditory-perceptual evaluation of voice (CAPE-V), and gender in Brazilians with and without voice disorders.
        J Voice. 2016; 30: 765.e7-765.e11https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2015.10.013
        • Nagle KF.
        Emerging scientist: challenges to CAPE-V as a standard.
        Perspect ASHA Spec Interes Groups. 2016; 1: 47-53https://doi.org/10.1044/persp1.sig3.47
        • Behlau M
        • Rocha B
        • Englert M
        • Madazio G.
        Validation of the Brazilian Portuguese CAPE-V instrument—Br CAPE-V for auditory-perceptual analysis.
        J Voice. 2020; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2020.07.007
        • Zraick RI
        • Kempster GB
        • Connor NP
        • et al.
        Establishing validity of the consensus auditory-perceptual evaluation of voice (CAPE-V).
        Am J Speech-Language Pathol. 2011; 20: 14-22https://doi.org/10.1044/1058-0360(2010/09-0105
        • Mcalister S
        • Yanushevskaya I
        • Mcalister S
        • et al.
        Voice assessment practices of speech and language therapists in Ireland voice assessment practices of speech and language therapists.
        Clin Linguist Phon. 2020; 34: 29-53https://doi.org/10.1080/02699206.2019.1610798
        • Kempster GB
        • Gerratt BR
        • Abbott KV
        • et al.
        Consensus auditory-perceptual evaluation of voice: development of a standardized clinical protocol.
        Am J Speech-Language Pathol. 2009; 18: 124-132https://doi.org/10.1044/1058-0360(2008/08-0017
        • Kreiman J
        • Gerratt BR
        • Ito M.
        When and why listeners disagree in voice quality assessment tasks.
        J Acoust Soc Am. 2007; 122: 2354-2364https://doi.org/10.1121/1.2770547
        • Kreiman J
        • Gerratt BR
        • Kempster GB
        • et al.
        Perceptual evaluation of voice quality: review, tutorial, and a framework for future research.
        J Speech Hear Res. 1993; 36: 21-40https://doi.org/10.1044/jshr.3601.21
        • Karnell MP
        • Melton SD
        • Childes JM
        • Coleman TC
        • Dailey SA
        • Hoffman HT
        Reliability of clinician-based (GRBAS and CAPE-V) and patient-based (V-RQOL and IPVI) documentation of voice disorders.
        J Voice. 2007; 21: 576-590https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JVOICE.2006.05.001
      1. de Almeida SC, Mendes AP, Kempster GB. The Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V) psychometric characteristics: II European Portuguese Version (II EP CAPE-V). J Voice. 2019;33:582.e5–582.e13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2018.02.013

        • 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. 2014; 65: 257-265https://doi.org/10.1159/000356479
        • Núñez-Batalla F
        • Morato-Galán M
        • García-López I
        • et al.
        Validation of the Spanish adaptation of the consensus auditory-perceptual evaluation of voice (CAPE-V).
        Acta Otorrinolaringol Esp. 2015; 66: 249-257https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otorri.2014.07.007
        • Ertan-Schlüter E
        • Demirhan E
        • Ünsal EM
        • et al.
        The Turkish version of the consensus auditory-perceptual evaluation of voice (CAPE-V): a reliability and validity study.
        J Voice. 2020; 34: 965.e13-965.e22https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2019.05.014
        • Özcebe E
        • Aydinli FE
        • Tiğrak TK
        • et al.
        Reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the consensus auditory-perceptual evaluation of voice (CAPE-V).
        J Voice. 2017; 33: 382.e1-382.e10https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2017.11.013
        • Joshi A.
        • Baheti I.
        • Angadi V.
        Cultural and linguistic adaptation of the Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V) into Hindi.
        Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research. 2020; 63: 3974-3981https://doi.org/10.1044/2020_JSLHR-20-00348
        • Chen Z
        • Fang R
        • Zhang Y
        • et al.
        The Mandarin version of the consensus auditory-perceptual evaluation of voice (CAPE-V) and its reliability.
        J Speech, Lang Hear Res. 2018; 61: 2451-2457https://doi.org/10.1044/2018_JSLHR-S-17-0386
        • Castro FG
        • Barrera M
        • Holleran Steiker LK.
        Issues and challenges in the design of culturally adapted evidence-based interventions.
        Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2010; 6: 213-239https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-033109-132032
        • Gjersing L
        • Caplehorn JR
        • Clausen T.
        Cross-cultural adaptation of research instruments: Language, setting, time and statistical considerations.
        BMC Med Res Methodol. 2010; : 10https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-10-13
        • Guillemin F.
        Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of health status measures.
        Scand J Rheumatol. 1995; 24: 61-63https://doi.org/10.3109/03009749509099285
        • Lynn MR.
        Determination and quantification of content validity.
        Nurs Res. 1986; 35: 382-385https://doi.org/10.1097/00006199-198611000-00017
        • Yusoff MSB.
        ABC of content validation and content validity index calculation.
        Educ Med J. 2019; 11: 49-54https://doi.org/10.21315/eimj2019.11.2.6
        • Polit DF
        • Beck CT
        • Owen SV
        Focus on research methods: Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations.
        Res Nurs Heal. 2007; 30: 459-467https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20199
        • Davis LL.
        Instrument review: getting the most from a panel of experts.
        Appl Nurs Res. 1992; 5: 194-197https://doi.org/10.1016/S0897-1897(05)80008-4
        • Polit DF
        • Beck CT.
        The content validity index: are you sure you know what's being reported? Critique and recommendations.
        Res Nurs Heal. 2006; 29: 489-497https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20147
      2. Mohd Khairuddin KA. Analysis method for laryngeal high-speed videoendoscopy: development of measurement protocol and application in evaluating vocal fold vibration among different groups of normophonic individuals. 2020.

        • Lundy DS
        • Casiano RR
        • Sullivan PA
        • et al.
        Incidence of abnormal laryngeal findings in asymptomatic singing students.
        Otolaryngol - Head Neck Surg. 1999; 121: 69-77https://doi.org/10.1016/S0194-5998(99)70128-2
        • Dejonckere PH
        • Bradley P
        • Clemente P
        • et al.
        A basic protocol for functional assessment of voice pathology, especially for investigating the efficacy of (phonosurgical) treatments and evaluating new assessment techniques.
        Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2001; 258: 77-82https://doi.org/10.1007/s004050000299
      3. Titze IR.Workshop on Acoustic Voice Analysis: Summary Statement. National center for voice and speech; 1995. http://www.ncvs.org/freebooks/summary-statement.pdf

        • Chan KMK
        • Yiu EML.
        A comparison of two perceptual voice evaluation training programs for naive listeners.
        J Voice. 2006; 20: 229-241https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2005.03.007
        • Chan KMK
        • Yiu EML.
        The effect of anchors and training on the reliability of perceptual voice evaluation.
        J Speech, Lang Hear Res. 2002; 45: 111-126https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2002/009
        • Polit DF.
        Getting serious about test-retest reliability: a critique of retest research and some recommendations.
        Qual Life Res. 2014; 23: 1713-1720https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-014-0632-9
        • Mishra P
        • Pandey CM
        • Singth U
        • et al.
        Descriptive statistics and normality tests for statistical data.
        Ann Card Anaesth. 2019; 22: 67-72https://doi.org/10.4103/aca.ACA_157_18
        • Fritz CO
        • Morris PE
        • Richler JJ.
        Effect size estimates: Current use, calculations, and interpretation.
        J Exp Psychol Gen. 2012; 141: 2-18https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024338
        • Cohen J.
        A power primer.
        Psychol Bull. 1992; 112: 155-159https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.112.1.155
        • Stinson JN
        • Kavanagh T
        • Yamada J
        • et al.
        Systematic review of the psychometric properties, interpretability and feasibility of self-report pain intensity measures for use in clinical trials in children and adolescents.
        Pain. 2006; 125: 143-157https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pain.2006.05.006
        • Rush AJ
        • Bernstein IH
        • Trivedi MH
        • et al.
        An evaluation of the quick inventory of depressive symptomatology and the hamilton rating scale for depression: a sequenced treatment alternatives to relieve depression trial report.
        Biol Psychiatry. 2006; 59: 493-501https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2005.08.022
        • Bezeau S
        • Graves R.
        Statistical power and effect sizes of clinical neuropsychology research.
        J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 2001; 23: 399-406https://doi.org/10.1076/jcen.23.3.399.1181
        • Chan YH.
        Biostatistics 104: correlation analysis.
        Singapore Med J. 2003; 44: 614-619
        • Akoglu H.
        User's guide to correlation coefficients.
        Turkish J Emerg Med. 2018; 18: 91-93https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tjem.2018.08.001
      4. World Health Organization. Process of translation and adaptation of instruments. World health organization. Accessed at: August 31, 2020. Accessed from: https://www.who.int/substance_abuse/research_tools/translation/en/

        • Sousa VD
        • Rojjanasrirat W.
        Translation, adaptation and validation of instruments or scales for use in cross-cultural health care research: a clear and user-friendly guideline.
        J Eval Clin Pract. 2011; 17: 268-274https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01434.x
        • Hirobumi SR
        • Mamah M.
        Vokal beraspirat dan konsonan bergeminasi h [h h] ∼ [h?] dalam proses penerbitan kata bahasa Melayu.
        J Bhs. 2018; 18: 121-158