Gamze Yeşilli-Puzella1, Elçin Tadıhan-Özkan2, Youri Maryn3. 1. Department of Speech and Language Therapy; Anadolu University Faculty of Health Sciences, Eskisehir, TURKEY. Electronic address: gamzeyesilli@gmail.com. 2. Department of Speech and Language Therapy; Anadolu University Faculty of Health Sciences, Eskisehir, TURKEY. Electronic address: etadihan@anadolu.edu.tr. 3. European Institute for ORL-HNS, Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Head & Neck Surgery, GZA Sint-Augustinus, Wilrijk, Belgium; Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium; Faculty of Education, Health & Social Work, University College Ghent, Ghent, Belgium; School of Logopedics, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, Université Catholique de Louvain, Louvain-La-Neuve, Belgium; Phonanium, Lokeren, Belgium. Electronic address: youri@phonanium.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of the present study was to investigate the validity (both concurrent and diagnostic) and test-retest reliability of Acoustic Voice Quality Index (AVQI) version 2 (AVQI 02.06) in Turkish speaking population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two hundred and fifty five native Turkish subjects with normal voices (n = 128) and with voice disorders (n = 127) were asked to sustain the vowel [a:] and read aloud the Turkish phonetically balanced text. To determine the test-retest reliability of AVQI, 20 dysphonic (ie, around 15% of the group), and 20 normophonic (ie, around 15% of the group) were reassessed 15 minutes after the first AVQI determination. A three middle seconds of sustained vowel [a:] and a sentence with 25 syllables was concatenated, and AVQI analysis was conducted. The auditory-perceptual evaluation was performed by five experienced raters with Grade (G) from GRBAS Protocol. RESULTS: There was a statistically significant correlation between AVQI scores and auditory-perceptual evaluation of overall voice quality (rs = 0.717, P < 0.001). AVQI gave a threshold of 2.98 for the dysphonic voice. The values of intraclass correlation coefficient with two-way mixed-effects model, single-measures type, absolute agreement definition showed an excellent test-retest reliability for AVQI in Turkish language (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.986). CONCLUSION: AVQI v.02.06 is a valid and robust tool in differentiating dysphonic and normal voice, and has excellent test-retest reliability in Turkish language.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of the present study was to investigate the validity (both concurrent and diagnostic) and test-retest reliability of Acoustic Voice Quality Index (AVQI) version 2 (AVQI 02.06) in Turkish speaking population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two hundred and fifty five native Turkish subjects with normal voices (n = 128) and with voice disorders (n = 127) were asked to sustain the vowel [a:] and read aloud the Turkish phonetically balanced text. To determine the test-retest reliability of AVQI, 20 dysphonic (ie, around 15% of the group), and 20 normophonic (ie, around 15% of the group) were reassessed 15 minutes after the first AVQI determination. A three middle seconds of sustained vowel [a:] and a sentence with 25 syllables was concatenated, and AVQI analysis was conducted. The auditory-perceptual evaluation was performed by five experienced raters with Grade (G) from GRBAS Protocol. RESULTS: There was a statistically significant correlation between AVQI scores and auditory-perceptual evaluation of overall voice quality (rs = 0.717, P < 0.001). AVQI gave a threshold of 2.98 for the dysphonic voice. The values of intraclass correlation coefficient with two-way mixed-effects model, single-measures type, absolute agreement definition showed an excellent test-retest reliability for AVQI in Turkish language (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.986). CONCLUSION: AVQI v.02.06 is a valid and robust tool in differentiating dysphonic and normal voice, and has excellent test-retest reliability in Turkish language.