| Literature DB >> 23853403 |
A Schindler1, D Ginocchio, M Atac, P Maruzzi, S Madaschi, F Ottaviani, F Mozzanica.
Abstract
The objective of this study was to evaluate the reliability of the INFVo scale and its relationship with objective measures and VHI scores in 40 native Italian-speaking patients with substitution voice. The maximum phonation time (MPT), diadochokinesis (DDK) of the three syllabic sequence [pa/ta/ka], reading of a passage and a single word repetition test were recorded. Each patient completed the Italian version of the VHI. Three speech-language pathologists blindly rated the recordings using the auditory perceptual INFVo scale; one listened and assessed the voice recording twice. The INFVo intra- and inter-rater reliability reached good values. Strong to moderate correlations between the INFVo scale scores and MPT, DDK, distortions in the repetition test, speech rate during reading and the functional subscale of the VHI were found. In conclusion, the INFVo scale is a reliable tool and can be recommended for the perceptual assessment of substitution voices in Italian speaking patients.Entities:
Keywords: INFVo scale; MPT; Partial laryngectomy; Perceptual assessment; Speech rate; Substitution voice; Supracricoid laringectomy; Total laryngectomy; VHI
Mesh:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23853403 PMCID: PMC3665384
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital ISSN: 0392-100X Impact factor: 2.124
Characteristics characteristics of study participants.
| Type of laryngectomy | Number of patients | Sex | Phonation modality (n) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total laryngectomy | 24 | 17/7 | Oesophageal speakers (13) |
| Supracricoid laryngectomy | 7 | 4/3 | Arytenoid speakers (7) |
| Partial laryngectomy | 9 | 7/2 | Ventricular band speakers (9) |
| Frontolateral laryngectomy | 6 | 5/1 | |
| Glottectomy | 3 | 2/1 |
Mean ± standard deviation and ranges of the INFVo scores by the three raters in all patients.
| I | N | F | Vo | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rater 1 | 4.7 ± 3.3 | 4.8 ± 2.9 | 4.0 ± 3.5 | 2.9 ± 3.5 |
| Retest Rater 1 | 4.8 ± 3.1 | 4.7 ± 2.6 | 4.2 ± 3.5 | 3.1 ± 3.4 |
| Rater 2 | 4.6 ± 3.5 | 4.5 ± 3.1 | 3.5 ± 3.3 | 3.5 ± 3.5 |
| Rater 3 | 4.7 ± 3.4 | 5 ± 2.7 | 4.1 ± 3.4 | 3.1 ± 3.1 |
I: overall impression; N: additive noise; F: fluency; Vo: quality of voicing.
Inter-rater reliability analysis of the INFVo using Pearson test (r) and ICC analysis.
| I | N | F | Vo | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Test-retest Rater 1 | R | 0.97 | 0.95 | 0.97 | 0.95 |
| ICC | 0.97 | 0.95 | 0.97 | 0.95 | |
| Rater 1 vs 2 | R | 0.88 | 0.63 | 0.80 | 0.73 |
| ICC | 0.88 | 0.63 | 0.79 | 0.73 | |
| Rater 1 vs 3 | R | 0.87 | 0.83 | 0.87 | 0.82 |
| ICC | 0.86 | 0.82 | 0.87 | 0.82 | |
| Rater 1 vs 3 | R | 0.86 | 0.68 | 0.79 | 0.87 |
| ICC | 0.86 | 0.68 | 0.79 | 0.86 |
I: overall impression; N: additive noise; F: fluency; Vo: quality of voicing.
correlation between INFVo scores and MPT, DDK, speech rate and number of distortions.
| I | N | F | Vo | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MPT (s) | 0.59 | 0.57 | 0.73 | 0.57 |
| DDK (syll/s) | 0.47 | 0.45 | 0.67 | 0.47 |
| Speech rate (syll/s) | 0.71 | 0.63 | 0.83 | 0.64 |
| Number of distortions | - 0.82 | - 0.81 | - 0.64 | - 0.71 |
p < 0.01;
p < 0.05.
I: overall impression; N: additive noise; F: fluency; Vo: quality of voicing.
Correlation between INFVo parameters and self-assessment of the voice quality measured by VHI.
| I | N | F | Vo | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| VHI tot | - 0.29 | - 0.46 | - 0.20 | - 0.13 |
| VHI e | - 0.18 | - 0.25 | - 0.02 | - 0.07 |
| VHI f | - 0.51 | - 0.62 | - 0.41 | - 0.26 |
| VHI p | - 0.06 | - 0.25 | - 0.04 | - 0.02 |
p < 0.05;
p < 0.01.
I: overall impression; N: additive noise; F: fluency; Vo: quality of voicing; tot: total; e: emotional; f: functional; p: physical.