Summary
Objectives/Hypothesis
To prospectively establish a normative value for the validated Singing Voice Handicap
Index-10 (SVHI-10) patient reported outcome measure (PROM).
Study Design
Prospective cross-sectional study.
Methods
Adult singers without voice complaints were prospectively invited to complete a demographics
questionnaire followed by the SVHI-10. Participants were excluded if they had sought
medical care for voice changes within the last year or currently had throat problems.
Statistical analysis was completed to establish a normative value and the distribution
of demographics by singing experience, primary genre, and gender.
Results
One hundred forty-nine healthy participants from diverse backgrounds (including singing,
financial, educational, and geographic location) successfully completed the SVHI-10.
The mean (SD) score of this cohort was 9.13 (5.15). We defined a normative value as
two standard deviations above the mean: 19.43 There was no difference in SVHI-10 score
in different age groups.
Conclusions
A normative value for the SVHI-10 questionnaire has been missing from the current
literature and will be of great utility both in clinical practice and research. In
previous research, singers have been shown to be more perceptive to quality change
in their singing voices, which may be why the normative score is higher than one may
expect. A SVHI-10 score ≥20 should be considered abnormal.
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
- Validation of an instrument to measure voice-related quality of life (V-RQOL).J Voice. 1999; 13: 557-569https://doi.org/10.1016/S0892-1997(99)80010-1
- The relationship between ratings of voice quality and quality of life measures.J Voice. 2004; 18: 183-192https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2003.11.003
- The Voice Handicap Index (VHI).Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 1997; 6: 66-70https://doi.org/10.1044/1058-0360.0603.66
- Voice handicap index in singers.J Voice. 2000; 14: 370-377https://doi.org/10.1016/S0892-1997(00)80082-X
- Creation and validation of the singing voice handicap index.Ann Otol, Rhinol Laryngol. 2007; 116: 402-406https://doi.org/10.1177/000348940711600602
- Normative values for singing voice handicap index – systematic review and meta-analysis.Braz J Otorhinolaryngol. 2020; 86: 497-501https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjorl.2018.12.004
- Singing voice handicap and videostrobolaryngoscopy in healthy professional singers.J Voice. 2014; 28: 608-613https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2014.03.003
- Development and validation of the voice handicap index-10.Laryngoscope. 2004; 114: 1549-1556https://doi.org/10.1097/00005537-200409000-00009
- Standard deviations and standard errors.BMJ. 2005; 331: 903https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.331.7521.903
- Standard deviation and standard error of the mean.Korean J Anesthesiol. 2015; 68: 220-223https://doi.org/10.4097/kjae.2015.68.3.220
- Development and validation of the Singing Voice Handicap-10.Laryngoscope. 2009; 119: 1864-1869https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.20580
- VHI-10 and SVHI-10 differences in singers’ self-perception of dysphonia severity.J Voice. 2017; 31: 383.e1-383.e4https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2016.08.017
- Normative value of SVHI-10. systematic review and meta-analysis.J Voice. 2020; 34: 808.e25-808.e28https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2019.04.002
- Translation and validation of tamil version of singing voice handicap index-10 (TSVHI-10).J Voice. 2020; 34: 158.e9-158.e16https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2018.08.003
- Adaptation and validation of the kannada singing voice handicap index-10.J Voice. 2019; 33: 582.e1-582.e4https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2018.02.005
- Normative values for the voice handicap index-10.J Voice. 2011; 26: 462-465https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2011.04.006
- Self-reported voice problems among three groups of professional singers.J Voice. 1999; 13: 602-611https://doi.org/10.1016/S0892-1997(99)80014-9
- The influence of discordance in pain assessment on the functional status of patients with chronic nonmalignant pain.Am J Med Sci. 2006; 332: 18-23https://doi.org/10.1097/00000441-200607000-00004
- The patient vs. caregiver perception of acute pain in the emergency department.J Emerg Med. 2000; 18: 7-12https://doi.org/10.1016/S0736-4679(99)00153-5
- Pain rating by patients and physicians: evidence of systematic pain miscalibration.Pain. 2003; 102 (Available at:) (Accessed February 7, 2023): 289-296
- Clinimetrics Corner: The Minimal Clinically Important Change Score (MCID): A necessary pretense.J Manual Manipulat Ther. 2008; 16: 82E-83Ehttps://doi.org/10.1179/jmt.2008.16.4.82E
Article info
Publication history
Published online: March 16, 2023
Accepted:
February 13,
2023
Publication stage
In Press Corrected ProofFootnotes
This work was accepted for a podium presentation at the Fall Voice Conference in San Francisco, CA on October 6-8, 2022.
Identification
Copyright
© 2023 The Voice Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
