Advertisement

Reliability and Validity of the Mandarin Version of Singing Voice Handicap Index - 10 (MSVHI-10)

  • Sherry Fu
    Affiliations
    Mackay Medical College, Department of Audiology and Speech Language Pathology, New Taipei City, Taiwan

    Taipei American School, Lower School, Taipei, Taiwan
    Search for articles by this author
  • Yi-Chen Chen
    Affiliations
    University of Taipei, Graduate Master's Program of Speech and Language Pathology, Taipei, Taiwan
    Search for articles by this author
  • Chi-Te Wang
    Correspondence
    Address correspondence and reprint requests to Chi-Te Wang, No.21, Sec. 2, Nanya S. Rd., Banciao District, New Taipei City 220, Taiwan.
    Affiliations
    University of Taipei, Graduate Master's Program of Speech and Language Pathology, Taipei, Taiwan

    Department of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, Far Eastern Memorial Hospital, New Taipei City, Taiwan.

    Department of Electric Engineering, Yuan-Ze University, Taoyuan, Taiwan
    Search for articles by this author

      Summary

      Objectives

      The present study aims to evaluate the reliability and validity of the Mandarin version of the Singing Voice Handicap Index-10 (MSVHI-10).

      Methods

      One hundred and fifteen singers, aged from 21 to 65, participated in this study. All the subjects completed the Mandarin version of the SVHI-10 and the Voice Handicap Index-10 (VHI-10). Other gathered information include sex, age, type of singing performance, and the accumulated years of singing. We also asked the participants to self-report the presence of singing voice complaint. Statistical analyses were performed to evaluate the validity, reliability, and the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve of MSVHI-10.

      Results

      The results showed high internal consistency (Cronbach's α =0.96), with the scores of each question ranged from 0.57 to 0.90. Forty-three singers re-filled the MSVHI-10 with an interval of 12.7 ± 9.3 days (mean ± standard deviation), and the results showed a high test-retest reliability (r = 0.98, P < 0.01). The SVHI-10 scores were significantly correlated with the VHI-10 (r = 0.54-0.72, P < 0.01). ROC analysis revealed a high differentiating accuracy for distinguishing between the subjects with or without singing voice complaints, with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.97. At the cut-off score of 21.5, the sensitivity and specificity were 85.7% and 95.9%, respectively.

      Conclusions

      The Mandarin version of the SVHI-10 has been shown to be a reliable and valid instrument for evaluating the self-perception of singing voice complaints.

      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

        • Baracca G
        • Cantarella G
        • Forti S
        • et al.
        Validation of the Italian version of the singing voice handicap index.
        Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2014; 271: 817-823
        • Vella B
        • Brown L
        • Phyland D.
        Amateur music theatre singers’ perceptions of their current singing voice function.
        J Voice. 2021; 35: 589-596
        • Castelblanco L
        • Habib M
        • Stein DJ
        • et al.
        Singing voice handicap and videostrobolaryngoscopy in healthy professional singers.
        J Voice. 2014; 28: 608-613
        • Phyland DJ
        • Oates J
        • Greenwood KM
        Self-reported voice problems among three groups of professional singers.
        J Voice. 1999; 13: 602-611
        • Carding PN
        • Steen IN
        • Webb A
        • et al.
        The reliability and sensitivity to change of acoustic measures of voice quality.
        Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci. 2004; 29: 538-544
        • Webb A
        • Carding P
        • Deary I
        • et al.
        Optimising outcome assessment of voice interventions, I: reliability and validity of three self-reported scales.
        J Laryngol Otolog. 2007; 121: 763-767
        • Cohen SM
        • Jacobson BH
        • Garrett CG
        • et al.
        Creation and validation of the singing voice handicap index.
        Annal Otolog Rhinolog Laryngolog. 2007; 116: 402-406
        • Cohen SM
        • Statham M
        • Rosen CA
        • et al.
        Development and validation of the singing voice handicap-10.
        Laryngoscope. 2009; 119: 1864-1869
        • Sielska-Badurek EM
        • Sobol M
        • Cioch A
        • et al.
        <Adaptation and validation of the singing voice handicap index into polish.pdf>.
        Clin Otolaryngol. 2017; 42: 994-999
        • Rangarajan A
        • Santhanam DP
        • Selvaraj JL.
        Translation and validation of Tamil version of singing voice handicap index-10 (TSVHI-10).
        J Voice. 2020; 34 (e159-158.e116): 158
        • Gunjawate DR
        • Aithal V
        • Bellur R.
        Adaptation and validation of the Kannada singing voice handicap index-10.
        J Voice. 2019; 33 (e581-582.e584): 582
        • Aydinli FE
        • Akbulut S
        • Özcebe E
        • et al.
        Validity and reliability of the Turkish singingvoice handicap index-10.
        J Voice. 2020; 34 (e309-304.e315): 304
        • Gilbert MR
        • Gartner-Schmidt JL
        • Rosen CA.
        The VHI-10 and VHI item reduction translations—are we all speaking the same language?.
        J Voice. 2017; 31 (e251-250.e257): 250
        • Hsu YC
        • Lin FC
        • Wang CT.
        Optimization of the minimal clinically important difference of the mandarin chinese version of 10-Item voice handicap index.
        Taiwan Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2017; 52: 8-14
        • Polit DF
        • Beck CT
        • Owen SV.
        Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations.
        Res Nurs Health. 2007; 30: 459-467
        • Mandrekar JN
        Receiver operating characteristic curve in diagnostic test assessment.
        J Thorac Oncol. 2010; 5: 1315-1316
        • Akobeng AK.
        Understanding diagnostic tests 3: receiver operating characteristic curves.
        Acta Paediatr. 2007; 96: 644-647
        • DeJonckere PH
        • Crevier-Buchman L
        • Marie JP
        • et al.
        Implementation of the European Laryngological Society (ELS) basic protocol for assessing voice treatment effect.
        Rev Laryngol Otol Rhinol (Bord). 2003; 124: 279-283
        • Denscombe M.
        Item non-response rates: a comparison of online and paper questionnaires.
        Int J Soc Res Methodolog. 2009; 12: 281-291
        • Evans JR
        • Mathur A.
        The value of online surveys.
        Int Res. 2005; 15: 195-219