The Acoustic Voice Quality Index version 03.01 in French and the Voice Handicap Index

[en] Summary: Objectives. The Acoustic Voice Quality Index (AVQI) version 03.01 is a tool for quantitative assessment of the overall severity of dysphonia. Its computation includes six acoustic parameters, which are all carried out by the freeware Praat. It is based on the recordings of a sustained vowel and a part of a text read aloud. The psychometric qualities of this tool have been confirmed by numerous publications in various languages, including French. However, studies investigating the correlation between tools for objective vocal assessment and voice-related quality of life show inconsistent results. Hence, the aim of this study was to contribute to the debate in measuring the correlations between the AVQI 03.01 score computed on French samples and the Voice Handicap Index. Methods. The data of 78 patients was used, collected during initial vocal assessment and stored in the ENT caseload of the University Hospital of Liège. We measured the Spearman rank-order correlation between the VHI total and sub-scores and the scores computed by the AVQI 03.01 on French samples. Eventually, we measured the correlation between the diagnostic decisions (“normophonia” vs “dysphonia”) of both tools using Cramer’s phi. Results. The Spearman correlation between the AVQI 03.01 score and the total VHI score, when controlling for age, is moderate (rs = .62, p < .0001). The correlations between the AVQI 03.01 score and the functional, emotional and physical sub-scores of the VHI are similarly moderate (rs = .643, .543 and .514, respectively, p <.0001). The correlation between the diagnostic decisions (“normophonia” vs “dysphonia”) by both tools is also moderate (φ = .52, p = .000). Conclusions. This study allows to keep things in perspective: even though AVQI 03.01 scores are moderately correlated with the VHI total and sub-scores, one has to keep in mind that they measure two different things. The AVQI 03.01 assesses the overall voice quality in terms of acoustic parameters, whereas the VHI assesses the multi-determined impact on the patient’s everyday life situations. Both results should thus be equally taken into account, as part of a comprehensive vocal assessment.

Disciplines :

Otolaryngology

Author, co-author :

Pommée, Timothy; Université Paul Sabatier - Toulouse 3 - UPS > Institut de Recherche en Informatique de Toulouse

Maryn, Youri

FINCK, Camille ; Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Liège - CHU > Autres Services Médicaux > Service d'ORL, d'audiophonologie et de chir. cervico-faciale

Morsomme, Dominique ; Université de Liège - ULiège > Département de Logopédie > Logopédie des troubles de la voix

Language :

English

Title :

The Acoustic Voice Quality Index version 03.01 in French and the Voice Handicap Index

Publication date :

2020

Journal title :

Journal of Voice

ISSN :

0892-1997

eISSN :

1873-4588

Publisher :

Mosby, United States - Missouri

Volume :

Issue :

Pages :

646.e1−646.e10

Peer reviewed :

Peer Reviewed verified by ORBi

Available on ORBi :

since 06 December 2018

Statistics

Number of views

128 (14 by ULiège)

Number of downloads

7 (6 by ULiège)

More statistics

Scopus citations^®

Scopus citations^®
without self-citations

OpenCitations

Bibliography

Maryn, Y, Corthals, P, Van Cauwenberge, P, et al. Toward improved ecological validity in the acoustic measurement of overall voice quality: combining continuous speech and sustained vowels. J Voice 24 (2009), 540–555 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2008.12.014.
Maryn, Y, Weenink, D, Objective dysphonia measures in the program Praat: Smoothed cepstral peak prominence and Acoustic Voice Quality Index. J Voice 29 (2015), 35–43 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2014.06.015.
Pommée T, Maryn Y, Finck C, et al. Validation of the Acoustic Voice Quality Index, version 03.01, in French. J Voice. In press.
Heman-Ackah, YD, Heuer, RJ, Michael, DD, et al. Cepstral peak prominence: a more reliable measure of dysphonia. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 112 (2003), 324–333 https://doi.org/10.1177/000348940311200406.
Ferrer, C, De Bodt, M, Maryn, Y, et al. Properties of the cepstral peak prominence and its usefulness in vocal quality measurements. In: 5th International Workshop on Models and Analysis of Vocal Emissions for Biomedical Applications, 2007, Firenze University Press, Florence, 93–96.
Hillenbrand, JM, A methodological study of perturbation and additive noise in synthetically generated voice signals. J Speech Hearing Res 30 (1987), 448–461 https://doi.org/10.1044/jshr.3004.448.
Schoentgen, J, Spectral models of additive and modulation noise in speech and phonatory excitation signals. J Acoust Soc Am 113 (2003), 553–562 https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1523384.
Autesserre, D, Charpy, N, Crevier-Buchman, L, et al. La Voix: Ses Troubles Chez Les Enseignants. 2006, Les éditions INSERM, Paris.
Delgado, J, León, N, Izquierdo, L, et al. Cepstral analysis of normal and pathological voice in Spanish adults. Smoothed cepstral peak prominence in sustained vowels versus connected speech. Acta Otorrinolaringol Esp 69 (2018), 134–140 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otorri.2017.05.006.
Lowell, S, Colton, R, Kelley, R, et al. Spectral- and cepstral-based measures during continuous speech: capacity to distinguish dysphonia and consistency within a speaker. J Voice 25 (2011), e223–e232 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2010.06.007.
Sauder, C, Bretl, M, Eadie, T, Predicting voice disorder status from smoothed measures of cepstral peak prominence using Praat and Analysis of Dysphonia in Speech and Voice (ADSV). J Voice 31 (2017), 557–566 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2017.01.006.
Gliklich, RE, Glovsky, RM, Montgomery, WW, Validation of a voice outcome survey for unilateral vocal cord paralysis. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 120 (1999), 153–158 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0194-5998(99)70399-2.
Poulain, J-C, Sauvignet-Poulain, A, La rééducation vocale des immobilités laryngées. Klein-Dallant, C, (eds.) De la Voix Parlée au Chant: Bilans, Rééducations, Pathologies de la Voix Parlée et Chantée, 2017, Klein-Dallant, Paris, 261–274.
Hartnick, CJ, Volk, M, Cunningham, M, Establishing normative voice-related quality of life scores within the pediatric otolaryngology population. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 129 (2003), 1090–1093 https://doi.org/10.1001/archotol.129.10.1090.
Hogikyan, ND, Sethuraman, G, Validation of an instrument to measure Voice-Related Quality of Life (V-RQOL). J Voice 13 (1999), 557–569 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0892-1997(99)80010-1.
Boseley, ME, Cunningham, MJ, Volk, MS, et al. Validation of the pediatric Voice-Related Quality-of-Life survey. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 132 (2006), 717–720 https://doi.org/10.1001/archotol.132.7.717.
Verduyckt, I, Remacle, M, Jamart, J, et al. Voice-related complaints in the pediatric population. J Voice 25 (2011), 373–380 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2009.11.008.
Carding, PN, Horsley, IA, Docherty, GJ, A study of the effectiveness of voice therapy in the treatment of 45 patients with nonorganic dysphonia. J Voice 13 (1999), 72–104 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0892-1997(99)80063-0.
Ma, EP, Yiu, EM, Voice activity and participation profile: assessing the impact of voice disorders on daily activities. J Speech Lang Hear Res 44 (2001), 511–524 https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2001/040).
Martin, S, Lockhart, M, VIP: Voice Impact Profile. 2005, Speechmark Publishing, Bicester, UK.
Deary, IJ, Wilson, JA, Carding, PN, et al. VoiSS: a patient-derived Voice Symptom Scale. J Psychosom Res 54 (2003), 483–489 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3999(02)00469-5.
Jacobson, B, Johnson, A, Grywalski, C, et al. The Voice Handicap Index (VHI): development and validation. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 6 (1997), 66–69 https://doi.org/10.1044/1058-0360.0603.66.
Wilson, J, Webb, A, Carding, P, et al. The Voice Symptom Scale (VoiSS) and the Vocal Handicap Index (VHI): a comparison of structure and content. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 29 (2004), 169–174 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0307-7772.2004.00775.x.
Behlau, M, Madazio, G, Moreti, F, et al. Efficiency and cutoff values of self-assessment instruments on the impact of a voice problem. J Voice 30 (2016), 506.e9–506.e18 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2015.05.022.
Giovanni, A., Le Bilan d'une Dysphonie: État Actuel et Perspectives. 2004, Solal, Marseille.
Seifpanahi, S, Jalaie, S, Nikoo, MR, et al. Translated versions of Voice Handicap Index (VHI)-30 across languages: a systematic review. Iran J Public Health 44 (2015), 458–469.
Gräßel, E, Hoppe, U, Rosanowski, F, Graduierung des Voice-Related-Quality-of-Life-Index. HNO 57 (2009), 896–901 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00106-009-1953-9.
Rosen, C, Lee, A, Osborne, J, et al. Development and validation of the Voice Handicap Index-10. Laryngoscope 114 (2004), 1549–1556 https://doi.org/10.1097/00005537-200409000-00009.
Da Costa de Ceballos, AG, Carvalho, FM, De Araujo, TM, et al. Diagnostic validity of Voice Handicap Index-10 (VHI-10) compared with perceptive-auditory and acoustic speech pathology evaluations of the voice. J Voice 24 (2010), 715–718 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2009.03.006.
Hirano, M., Psycho-Acoustic Evaluation of Voice: GRBAS Scale for Evaluating the Hoarse Voice. 1981, Springer Verlag, Wien.
Gillespie, AI, Gooding, W, Rosen, C, et al. Correlation of VHI-10 to voice laboratory measurements across five common voice disorders. J Voice 28 (2014), 440–448 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2013.10.023.
Awan, SN, Roy, N, Cohen, SM, Exploring the relationship between spectral and cepstral measures of voice and the Voice Handicap Index (VHI). J Voice 28 (2014), 430–439 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2013.12.008.
Lopes, LW, Da Silva, JD, Simões, LB, et al. Relationship between acoustic measurements and self-evaluation in patients with voice disorders. J Voice 31 (2017), 119.e1–119.e10 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2016.02.021.
Schindler, A, Mozzanica, F, Vedrody, M, et al. Correlation between the Voice Handicap Index and voice measurements in four groups of patients with dysphonia. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 141 (2009), 762–769 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otohns.2009.08.021.
Woisard, V, Bodin, S, Yardeni, E, et al. The Voice Handicap Index: correlation between subjective patient response and quantitative assessment of voice. J Voice 21 (2007), 623–631 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2006.04.005.
DiLollo, A, Favreau, C, Person-centered care and speech and language therapy. Semin Speech Lang 31 (2010), 90–97 https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0030-1252110.
Satterfield, JS, Toward a transdisciplinary model of evidence-based practice. Milbank Q 87 (2009), 368–390 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0009.2009.00561.x.
World Health Organization. International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. 2001, World Health Organization, Geneva.
Mroczek, D, Spiro, A, Change in life satisfaction during adulthood: findings from the veterans affairs normative aging study. J Pers Soc Psychol 88 (2005), 189–202 https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.1.189.
Swift, H, Vauclair, C-M, Abrams, D, et al. Revisiting the paradox of well-being: the importance of national context. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci 69 (2014), 920–929 https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbu011.
Belgian National Institute for Health and Disability Insurance. Code éthique et déontologique des logopèdes. 2014. Available at: http://www.inami.fgov.be/fr/professionnels/sante/logopedes-code-ethique-deontologique.aspx.
Harmegnies, B, Landercy, A, Intra-speaker variability of the long-term speech spectrum. Speech Commun 7 (1988), 81–86 https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-6393(88)90023-4.
Hinkle, D, Wiersma, W, Jurs, S, Applied Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. (3rd ed.)., 1994, Houghton Mifflin, Boston.
Andale. Fisher Z-Transformation; 2016. Retrieved March 11,. http://www.statisticshowto.com/fisher-z/, 2017.
Kenny, DA, Statistics for the Social and Behavioral Sciences. 1987, Little, Brown and Company, Boston.
Warner, RM, Applied Statistics: From Bivariate through Multivariate Techniques. (2nd ed.)., 2013, SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Rea, LM, Parker, RA, Designing and Conducting Survey Research. 1992, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Barsties, B, Maryn, Y, Test-retest-variabilität und interne konsistenz des Acoustic Voice Quality Index. HNO 61 (2013), 399–403 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00106-012-2649-0.
Maertens, K, De Jong, F, The Voice Handicap Index as a tool for assessment of the biopsychosocial impact of voice problems. B-ENT 3 (2007), 61–66.
Rodrigues, G, De Moraes, JP, Aparecida, C, Influence of gender, age, occupation and phonoaudiological diagnosis in the voice quality of life. Rev CEFAC 16 (2014), 1900–1907 http://doi.org/10.1590/1982-0216201415913.
Maryn, Y, Roy, N, Sustained vowels and continuous speech in the auditory-perceptual evaluation of dysphonia severity. J Soc Bras Fonoaudiol 24 (2012), 107–112 https://doi.org/10.1590/S2179-64912012000200003.
Reynolds, V, Buckland, A, Bailey, J, et al. Objective assessment of pediatric voice disorders with the Acoustic Voice Quality Index. J Voice 26 (2012), 672.e1–672.e7 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2012.02.002.
Baken, RJ, Orlikoff, RF, Clinical Measurement of Speech and Voice. (2nd ed.)., 2000, Cengage Learning, Boston.
Branski, RC, Cukier-Blaj, S, Pusic, A, et al. Measuring quality of life in dysphonic patients: a systematic review of content development in patient-reported outcomes measures. J Voice 24 (2010), 193–198 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2008.05.006.
Behlau, M, Zambon, F, Moreti, F, et al. Voice self-assessment protocols: different trends among organic and behavioral dysphonias. J Voice 31 (2017), 112.e13–112.e27 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2016.03.014.
Deliyski, D, Shaw, H, Evans, M, Adverse effects of environmental noise on acoustic voice quality measurements. J Voice 19 (2005), 15–28 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2004.07.003.