OBJECTIVE: Test the Velopharyngeal Insufficiency (VPI) Effects on Life Outcomes (VELO) instrument for validity, reliability, and responsiveness. STUDY DESIGN: Observational cohort. SETTING: Academic tertiary medical center. SUBJECTS: Children with VPI (n = 59) and their parents (n = 84) were prospectively enrolled from a pediatric VPI clinic. METHODS: Pediatric speech language pathologists diagnosed VPI using perceptual speech analysis and rated VPI severity and speech intelligibility deficit (each as minimal, mild, moderate, or severe). All parents and youth 8+ years old (n = 24) completed the VELO instrument and other quality-of-life questionnaires at baseline; the first 40 subjects completed the VELO instrument again 2 weeks later. Treatments included Furlow palatoplasty (n = 20), sphincter pharyngoplasty (n = 14), or an obturator (n = 2), and 29 of 36 (81%) subjects completed the questionnaires 3 months posttreatment. VELO was tested with correlations for criterion validity against VPI severity, construct validity against speech intelligibility and velopharyngeal gap size, and concurrent validity against other quality-of-life measures (r > .40 demonstrating validity); for test-retest reliability using intraclass correlation (>.6 demonstrating reliability); and for responsiveness with the 3-month posttreatment measure using the paired t test. RESULTS: Parental responses are reported; youth responses showed similar results. The VELO instrument did not meet criterion validity (r = -.18, P = .10), or functional construct validity (r = -.37, P = .001), but did meet anatomic construct and concurrent validity (each r > .50, P < .01). VELO scores demonstrated excellent test-retest reliability (r = .85, P < .001) and responsiveness (baseline 54 ± 14 to posttreatment 70 ± 18, P < .001). CONCLUSION: VELO provides a VPI-specific quality-of-life instrument that demonstrates concurrent validity, test-retest reliability, and responsiveness to change in quality of life with treatment.
OBJECTIVE: Test the Velopharyngeal Insufficiency (VPI) Effects on Life Outcomes (VELO) instrument for validity, reliability, and responsiveness. STUDY DESIGN: Observational cohort. SETTING: Academic tertiary medical center. SUBJECTS:Children with VPI (n = 59) and their parents (n = 84) were prospectively enrolled from a pediatric VPI clinic. METHODS: Pediatric speech language pathologists diagnosed VPI using perceptual speech analysis and rated VPI severity and speech intelligibility deficit (each as minimal, mild, moderate, or severe). All parents and youth 8+ years old (n = 24) completed the VELO instrument and other quality-of-life questionnaires at baseline; the first 40 subjects completed the VELO instrument again 2 weeks later. Treatments included Furlow palatoplasty (n = 20), sphincter pharyngoplasty (n = 14), or an obturator (n = 2), and 29 of 36 (81%) subjects completed the questionnaires 3 months posttreatment. VELO was tested with correlations for criterion validity against VPI severity, construct validity against speech intelligibility and velopharyngeal gap size, and concurrent validity against other quality-of-life measures (r > .40 demonstrating validity); for test-retest reliability using intraclass correlation (>.6 demonstrating reliability); and for responsiveness with the 3-month posttreatment measure using the paired t test. RESULTS: Parental responses are reported; youth responses showed similar results. The VELO instrument did not meet criterion validity (r = -.18, P = .10), or functional construct validity (r = -.37, P = .001), but did meet anatomic construct and concurrent validity (each r > .50, P < .01). VELO scores demonstrated excellent test-retest reliability (r = .85, P < .001) and responsiveness (baseline 54 ± 14 to posttreatment 70 ± 18, P < .001). CONCLUSION: VELO provides a VPI-specific quality-of-life instrument that demonstrates concurrent validity, test-retest reliability, and responsiveness to change in quality of life with treatment.
Entities:
Keywords:
quality of life; reliability; responsiveness; validation; velopharyngeal insufficiency
Authors: Derek J Lam; Jacqueline R Starr; Jonathan A Perkins; Charlotte W Lewis; Linda E Eblen; Julie Dunlap; Kathleen C Y Sie Journal: Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2006-03 Impact factor: 3.497
Authors: Rafael Denadai; Cassio Eduardo Raposo-Amaral; Anelise Sabbag; Rafael Andrade Ribeiro; Celso Luiz Buzzo; Cesar Augusto Raposo-Amaral; Man Hung; Jonathan R Skirko Journal: J Craniofac Surg Date: 2019 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 1.046
Authors: Jonathan R Skirko; Edward M Weaver; Jonathan A Perkins; Sara Kinter; Linda Eblen; Julie Martina; Kathleen C Y Sie Journal: Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2015-06-29 Impact factor: 3.497
Authors: Jonathan R Skirko; Rosario M Santillana; Christina T Roth; Chance Dunbar; Travis T Tollefson Journal: Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open Date: 2018-11-15
Authors: Aditi Bhuskute; Jonathan R Skirko; Christina Roth; Ahmed Bayoumi; Blythe Durbin-Johnson; Travis T Tollefson Journal: JAMA Facial Plast Surg Date: 2017-09-01 Impact factor: 4.611
Authors: Hilary McCrary; Sarah Hatch Pollard; Vanessa Torrecillas; Leon Khong; Helene M Taylor; Jeremy Meier; Harlan Muntz; Jonathan Skirko Journal: Cleft Palate Craniofac J Date: 2020-03-24
Authors: Vanessa Torrecillas; Sarah Hatch Pollard; Hilary McCrary; Helene M Taylor; Alexandra Palmer; Jeremy Meier; Harlan Muntz; Jonathan R Skirko Journal: Cleft Palate Craniofac J Date: 2020-10-05