Abstract :
[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.
