Literature DB >> 16301366

Validity and reliability of the glottal function index.

Kevin K Bach1, Peter C Belafsky, Kathleen Wasylik, Gregory N Postma, Jamie A Koufman.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a symptom-focused vocal impairment instrument for the evaluation of patients with voice disorders.
DESIGN: Prospective, nonrandomized study of patients with voice disorders undergoing treatment with validation of a new symptom index, the Glottal Function Index (GFI).
SETTING: Voice disorders clinic at an academic tertiary care hospital. PATIENTS: Consecutive patients undergoing therapy for glottal insufficiency, adductor spasmodic dysphonia, nodules, and granuloma (40 patients in each group) and 40 control patients.
INTERVENTIONS: The Pearson correlation coefficient was used to evaluate GFI reproducibility and to compare it with the Voice Handicap Index (VHI). The paired-samples t test was used to compare pretherapy and posttherapy GFI values. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Correlation of GFI with VHI; comparison of the GFI in normals, and in pretherapy and posttherapy GFI and VHI scores.
RESULTS: The mean +/- SD normative GFI score was 0.87 +/- 1.32. The correlation coefficient for GFI between independent pretherapy measurements was 0.56 (P<.001). The correlation coefficient between total GFI and total VHI scores was 0.61 (P<.001). The mean posttherapy GFI scores improved among all groups as follows: glottal insufficiency: presenting GFI score, 12.7 +/- 4.1; posttherapy GFI score, 6.8 +/- 5.4; nodules: presenting GFI score, 12.9 +/- 4.2; posttherapy GFI score, 8.9 +/- 4.6; adductor spasmodic dysphonia: presenting GFI score, 13.2 +/- 4.1; posttherapy GFI score, 8.9 +/- 4.9; and granuloma: presenting GFI score, 7.8 +/- 4.6; posttherapy GFI score, 3.8 +/- 2.1. Relative to controls, the GFI score at presentation was significantly elevated and demonstrated significant reduction following treatment across each of these entities (P<.05).
CONCLUSIONS: The GFI is a reliable, reproducible, 4-item, self-administered symptom index with excellent criterion-based and construct validity. Its advantages over existing indexes include brevity and ease of administration. The GFI is a useful adjunct in the evaluation and treatment of patients with glottal dysfunction.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16301366     DOI: 10.1001/archotol.131.11.961

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg        ISSN: 0886-4470


  14 in total

1.  The Relationship Between Physiological Mechanisms and the Self-Perception of Vocal Effort.

Authors:  Victoria S McKenna; Manuel E Diaz-Cadiz; Adrianna C Shembel; Nicole M Enos; Cara E Stepp
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2019-04-15       Impact factor: 2.297

2.  Exploring the feasibility of the combination of acoustic voice quality index and glottal function index for voice pathology screening.

Authors:  Nora Ulozaite-Staniene; Tadas Petrauskas; Viktoras Šaferis; Virgilijus Uloza
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2019-04-23       Impact factor: 2.503

3.  The relationship between acoustical and perceptual measures of vocal effort.

Authors:  Victoria S McKenna; Cara E Stepp
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2018-09       Impact factor: 1.840

4.  Dysphagia in Parkinson's Disease Improves with Vocal Augmentation.

Authors:  R J Howell; H Webster; E Kissela; R Gustin; F Kaval; B Klaben; S Khosla
Journal:  Dysphagia       Date:  2019-01-29       Impact factor: 3.438

5.  Vocal fold paresis accompanying vocal fold polyps.

Authors:  Sevtap Akbulut; Rahsan Adviye Inan; Hande Altintas; Ibrahim Gul; Derya Berk; Mustafa Paksoy
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2014-08-20       Impact factor: 2.503

Review 6.  Voice-Related Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: A Systematic Review of Instrument Development and Validation.

Authors:  David O Francis; James J Daniero; Kristen L Hovis; Nila Sathe; Barbara Jacobson; David F Penson; Irene D Feurer; Melissa L McPheeters
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2017-01-01       Impact factor: 2.297

7.  Exploring the feasibility of smart phone microphone for measurement of acoustic voice parameters and voice pathology screening.

Authors:  Virgilijus Uloza; Evaldas Padervinskis; Aurelija Vegiene; Ruta Pribuisiene; Viktoras Saferis; Evaldas Vaiciukynas; Adas Gelzinis; Antanas Verikas
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2015-07-11       Impact factor: 2.503

8.  Objective acoustic analysis of voice improvement after phonosurgery.

Authors:  Piyush Verma; Manisha Pal; Anoop Raj
Journal:  Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2010-09-24

9.  Relationship Between Tasked Vocal Effort Levels and Measures of Vocal Intensity.

Authors:  Eric J Hunter; Mark L Berardi; Miriam van Mersbergen
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2021-05-31       Impact factor: 2.297

10.  Examining Relationships Between GRBAS Ratings and Acoustic, Aerodynamic and Patient-Reported Voice Measures in Adults With Voice Disorders.

Authors:  Robert Brinton Fujiki; Susan L Thibeault
Journal:  J Voice       Date:  2021-03-06       Impact factor: 2.300

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.