[en] Objective: to study the differences of perceptual ratings of mild and moderate dysphonia related to the speech task, and their impact on intrarater and interrater reliabilities.
Patients and Methods: Voice recordings of fifteen outpatients with mild or moderate dysphonia related to laryngopharyngeal reflux were presented to 6 female experienced judges blinded to the clinical state of patient recordings. From these, the GRBASI evaluations were performed on connected speech and sustained vowel of the pretreatment voice recordings and absolute agreement, and bot intrarater and interrater reliabilities were assessed.
Results: The average GRBASI scores were significantly worse when performed on sustained vowel. Intrarater reliability substantially varied according to the judge and the task. Good interrater reliability was broadly found for the evaluations of all GRBASI components irrespective to the speech task. Concerning agreement, we only found absolute agreement between judges for G and R items assessed on text.
Conclusion: Average grade of perceptual voice impairment, intrarater reliability and agreement vary according to the speech task.
Disciplines :
Otolaryngology
Author, co-author :
Lechien, Jérôme; Université de Mons - UMONS > ORL
Morsomme, Dominique ; Université de Liège - ULiège > Département de Logopédie > Logopédie des troubles de la voix
Finck, Camille ; Université de Liège - ULiège > Département des sciences cliniques > Phoniatrie
Huet, Kathy; Université de Mons - UMONS
Delvaux, Véronique; Université de Mons - UMONS
Piccaluga, Myriam; Université de Mons - UMONS
Harmegnies, Bernard; Université de Mons - UMONS
Saussez, Sven; Université de Mons - UMONS
Language :
English
Title :
The effect of the speech task characteristics on perceptual judgment of mild to moderate dysphonia: a methodological study.
Alternative titles :
[en] The effect of the speech task characteristics on perceptual judgment of mild to moderate dysphonia: a methodological study.
Hirano M, Hibi S, Teresawa R, Fujiu M. Relationship between aerodynamic, vibratory, acoustic and psychoacoustic correlates of dysphonia. J Phonetics. 1986; 14: 445-56.
Dejonckere PH, Remacle M, Fresnel-Elbaz E, Woisard V, Crevier-Buchman L, Millet B. Differentiated perceptual evaluation of pathological voice quality: Reliability and correlations with acoustic measurements. Rev Laryngol Otol Rhinol (Bord). 1996; 117(3): 219-24.
Santos KW, Scheeren B, Maciel AC, Cassol M. Vocal Variability Post Swallowing in Individuals with and without Oropharyngeal Dysphagia. Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2015 Jan; 19(1): 61-6.
Sardesai MG, Merati AL, Hu A, Birkent H. Impact of patient-related factors on the outcomes of office-based injection laryngoplasty. Laryngoscope. 2016 Aug; 126(8): 1806-9.
Silva LF, Gama AC, Cardoso FE, Reis CA, Bassi IB. Idiopathic Parkinson's disease: Vocal and quality of life analysis. Arq Neuropsiquiatr. 2012 Sep; 70(9): 674-9.
Nemr K, Simões-Zenari M, Cordeiro GF, Tsuji D, Ogawa AI, Ubrig MT, et al. GRBAS and Cape-V scales: High reliability and consensus when applied at different times. J Voice. 2012 Nov; 26(6): 812.e17-22.
Lechien JR, Delvaux V, Huet K, Khalife M, Fourneau AF, Piccaluga M, et al. Phonetic Approaches of Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Disease: A Prospective Study. J Voice. 2017 Jan; 31(1): 119.e11-20.
Mozzanica F, Ginocchio D, Borghi E, Bachmann C, Schindler A. Reliability and validity of the Italian version of the Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPEV). Folia Phoniatr Logop. 2013; 65(5): 257-65.
de Krom G. Consistency and reliability of voice quality ratings for different types of speech fragments. J Speech Hear Res. 1994 Oct; 37(5): 985-1000.
Revis J, Giovanni A, Wuyts F, Triglia J. Comparison of different voice samples for perceptual analysis. Folia Phoniatr Logop. 1999; 51(3): 108-16.
Yu P, Revis J, Wuyts FL, Zanaret M, Giovanni A. Correlation of instrumental voice evaluation with perceptual voice analysis using a modified visual analog scale. Folia Phoniatr Logop. 2002 Nov-Dec; 54(6): 271-81.
Law T, Kim JH, Lee KY, Tang EC, Lam JH, van Hasselt AC, et al. Comparison of Rater's reliability on perceptual evaluation of different types of voice sample. J Voice. 2012 Sep; 26(5): 666.e13-21.
Fex B, Fex S, Shiromoto O, Hirano M. Acoustic analysis of functional dysphonia: Before and after voice therapy (accent method). J Voice. 1994 Jun; 8(2): 163-7.
Lechien JR, Finck C, Khalife M, Huet K, Delvaux V, Picalugga M, et al. Change of signs, symptoms and voice quality evaluations throughout a 3-to 6-month empirical treatment for laryngopharyngeal reflux disease. Clin Otolaryngol. 2018 May. https://doi. org/10.1111/coa.13140.
Finck C. Implantation d'acide hyaluronique estérifié lors de la microchirurgie des lésions cordales bénignes [PhD thesis]. Liege: University of Liege; 2008.
Lu FL, Matteson S. Speech tasks and interrater reliability in perceptual voice evaluation. J Voice. 2014 Nov; 28(6): 725-32.
Zraick RI, Wendel K, Smith-Olinde L. The effect of speaking task on perceptual judgment of the severity of dysphonic voice. J Voice. 2005 Dec; 19(4): 574-81.
Gerratt BR, Kreiman J, Antonanzas-Barroso N, Berke GS. Comparing internal and external standards in voice quality judgments. J Speech Hear Res. 1993 Feb; 36(1): 14-20.
Maryn Y, Roy N. Sustained vowels and continuous speech in the auditory-perceptual evaluation of dysphonia severity. J Soc Bras Fonoaudiol. 2012; 24(2): 107-12.
Bele IV. Reliability in perceptual analysis of voice quality. J Voice. 2005 Dec; 19(4): 555-73.
Soni RS, Ebersole B, Jamal N. Does Even Low-Grade Dysphonia Warrant Voice Center Referral J Voice. 2017 Nov; 31(6): 753-56.
Ghio A, Dufour S, Wengler A, Pouchoulin G, Revis J, Giovanni A. Perceptual evaluation of dysphonic voices: Can a training protocol lead to the development of perceptual categories J Voice. 2015 May; 29(3): 304-11.
Belafsky PC, Postma GN, Koufman JA. Laryngopharyngeal reflux symptoms improve before changes in physical findings. Laryngoscope. 2001 Jun; 111(6): 979-81.
Freitas FF, Costa KN, Reboucąs CB, Fernandes M, Lima JO. [Nonverbal communication between nurses and the elderly based on the proxemics]. Rev Bras Enferm. 2014 Nov-Dec; 67(6): 928-35.
Eadie TL, Kapsner M, Rosenzweig J, Waugh P, Hillel A, Merati A. The role of experience on judgments of dysphonia. J Voice. 2010 Sep; 24(5): 564-73.
Wolfe V, Fitch J, Martin D. Acoustic measures of dysphonic severity across and within voice types. Folia Phoniatr Logop. 1997; 49(6): 292-9.
Choi SH, Lee J, Sprecher AJ, Jiang JJ. The effect of segment selection on acoustic analysis. J Voice. 2012 Jan; 26(1): 1-7.
Núñez Batalla F, Corte Santos P, Sequeiros Santiago G, Senãris González B, Suárez Nieto C. [Perceptual evaluation of dysphonia: Correlation with acoustic parameters and reliability]. Acta Otorrinolaringol Esp. 2004 Jun-Jul; 55(6): 282-7.
Kelchner LN, Brehm SB, Weinrich B, Middendorf J, deAlarcon A, Levin L, et al. Perceptual evaluation of severe pediatric voice disorders: Rater reliability using the consensus auditory perceptual evaluation of voice. J Voice. 2010 Jul; 24(4): 441-9.
Anders LC, Hollien H, Hurme P, Sonninen A, Wendler J. Perception of hoarseness by several classes of listeners. Folia Phoniatr (Basel). 1988; 40(2): 91-100.
Kreiman J, Gerratt BR. Sources of listener disagreement in voice quality assessment. J Acoust Soc Am. 2000 Oct; 108(4): 1867-76.
Gerratt BR, Kreiman J, Garellek M. Comparing Measures of Voice Quality From Sustained Phonation and Continuous Speech. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2016 Oct; 59(5): 994-1001.
Schoentgen J, Fraj S, Lucero JC. Testing the reliability of Grade, Roughness and Breathiness scores by means of synthetic speech stimuli. Logoped Phoniatr Vocol. 2015 Apr; 40(1): 5-13.
De Bodt MS, Wuyts FL, Van de Heyning PH, Croux C. Test-retest study of the GRBAS scale: Influence of experience and professional background on perceptual rating of voice quality. J Voice. 1997 Mar; 11(1): 74-80.
Moon KR, Chung SM, Park HS, Kim HS. Materials of acoustic analysis: Sustained vowel versus sentence. J Voice. 2012 Sep; 26(5): 563-5.
Oates J. Auditory-perceptual evaluation of disordered voice quality: Pros, cons and future directions. Folia Phoniatr Logop. 2009; 61(1): 49-56.