French-Language Adaptation of the Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V).

[en] [en] OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to adapt the Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V) protocol for perceptual voice assessment to the French language. The primary objective was to achieve consensus among an international panel of voice experts on the content of the adapted protocol. METHODS: To ensure the relevance and robustness of the French CAPE-V protocol, this study employed a systematic Delphi method and involved an international panel primarily comprising speech therapists and lecturers from France and Belgium. The multi-stage process included an initial panel size of 15 experts. Three rounds of online questionnaires, integrating both quantitative and qualitative data collection, were conducted. Participants provided feedback and ratings on various protocol elements until a consensus was reached. Adaptations targeted the choice of task stimuli (sustained vowel, sentence reading, semi-spontaneous speech), of the rating scales, and vocal quality terminology. RESULTS: The Delphi process achieved consensus on all elements of the adapted CAPE-V protocol. Notably, the sustained vowel task saw consensus in favor of the vowel /a/. Sentence adaptations achieved substantial agreement, with the final set unanimously approved. The simple Visual Analog Scale emerged as the preferred rating scale. Agreement on terms for describing vocal qualities marked a crucial step in establishing a shared vocabulary among French-speaking voice experts. CONCLUSIONS: The study successfully adapted the CAPE-V protocol for perceptual voice assessment to the French language through a systematic Delphi process. The final protocol closely resembles the original English version, maintaining its structure and core objectives. Consensus on sustained vowel tasks, sentence adaptations, rating scales, and vocal quality terminology indicates the relevance and robustness of the adapted protocol. Ongoing validation studies in France demonstrate the potential clinical utility of the adapted CAPE-V in French-speaking contexts, representing a significant step toward standardized and validated voice assessment tools for clinicians and researchers globally.

Disciplines :

Otolaryngology
Speech and language therapy

Author, co-author :

Pommée, Timothy ; Sunnybrook Research Institute, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, Department of Speech-Language Pathology, Rehabilitation Sciences Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Electronic address: timothy_pommee@hotmail.com

Mbagira, Déborah; Research Unit for a Life-Course Perspective on Health and Education, Université de Liège, Liège, Belgium

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

Language :

English

Title :

French-Language Adaptation of the Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V).

Publication date :

05 April 2024

Journal title :

Journal of Voice

ISSN :

0892-1997

eISSN :

1873-4588

Publisher :

Elsevier, United States

Peer reviewed :

Peer Reviewed verified by ORBi

Additional URL :

https://api.elsevier.com/content/article/PII:S0892199724000857?httpAccept=text/xml

Funders :

ULiège - Université de Liège

Funding text :

The authors extend their sincere appreciation to Professor Laurent Rasier, Associate Professor, in the Department of Languages and Modern Literature at the University of Li\u00E8ge, whose expertise in the French language played a fundamental role in enriching the quality and precision of our adaptation process. The authors also express their gratitude to the voice experts whose unwavering participation and valuable insights were integral to the realization of this study. Their active engagement in the research, providing constructive feedback and expertise, played a vital role in achieving consensus for the adaptation of the CAPE-V protocol into the French language.

Available on ORBi :

since 08 September 2025

Statistics

Number of views

34 (1 by ULiège)

Number of downloads

28 (0 by ULiège)

More statistics

Scopus citations^®

Scopus citations^®
without self-citations

OpenCitations

OpenAlex citations

Bibliography

Lechien, J.R., Geneid, A., Bohlender, J.E., et al. Consensus for voice quality assessment in clinical practice: guidelines of the European Laryngological Society and Union of the European Phoniatricians. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 280 (2023), 5459–5473, 10.1007/s00405-023-08211-6.
Stachler, R.J., Francis, D.O., Schwartz, S.R., et al. Clinical practice guideline: hoarseness (dysphonia) (update). Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 158:suppl 1 (2018), S1–S42, 10.1177/0194599817751030.
Yamasaki, R., Madazio, G., Leão, S.H.S., et al. Auditory-perceptual evaluation of normal and dysphonic voices using the voice deviation scale. J Voice 31 (2017), 67–71, 10.1016/j.jvoice.2016.01.004.
Lee, Y., Kim, G., Kwon, S., The usefulness of auditory perceptual assessment and acoustic analysis for classifying the voice severity. J Voice 34 (2020), 884–893, 10.1016/j.jvoice.2019.04.013.
Oates, J., Auditory-perceptual evaluation of disordered voice quality. Folia Phoniatr Logop 61 (2009), 49–56, 10.1159/000200768.
Ghio, A., Revis, J., Smithson-Barrière, D., et al. Reliability and correlations between overall severity, roughness and breathiness in the perception of dysphonic voices: investigating cognitive aspects. J Voice 38 (2021), 136–143, 10.1016/j.jvoice.2021.07.010.
Hirano, M., Clinical Examination of Voice, 1981, Springer Verlag, Wien, Germany.
Nemr, K., Simões-Zenari, M., Cordeiro, G.F., et al. GRBAS and Cape-V scales: high reliability and consensus when applied at different times. J Voice 26 (2012), 812.e17–812.e22, 10.1016/j.jvoice.2012.03.005.
Mahalingam, S., Venkatraman, Y., Boominathan, P., Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of Consensus Auditory Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V): a systematic review. J Voice, 2021, 10.1016/j.jvoice.2021.10.022.
Wang, Z., Yu, P., Yan, N., et al. Automatic assessment of pathological voice quality using multidimensional acoustic analysis based on the GRBAS scale. J Signal Process Syst 82 (2016), 241–251, 10.1007/s11265-015-1016-2.
Karnell, M.P., Melton, S.D., Childes, J.M., et al. Reliability of clinician-based (GRBAS and CAPE-V) and patient-based (V-RQOL and IPVI) documentation of voice disorders. J Voice 21 (2007), 576–590, 10.1016/j.jvoice.2006.05.001.
Kempster, G.B., Gerratt, B.R., Verdolini Abbott, K., et al. Consensus auditory-perceptual evaluation of voice: development of a standardized clinical protocol. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 18 (2009), 124–132, 10.1044/1058-0360(2008/08-0017).
Fujiki, R.B., Thibeault, S.L., The relationship between auditory-perceptual rating scales and objective voice measures in children with voice disorders. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 30 (2021), 228–238, 10.1044/2020_AJSLP-20-00188.
Zraick, R.I., Kempster, G.B., Connor, N.P., et al. Establishing validity of the consensus auditory-perceptual evaluation of voice (CAPE-V). Am J Speech Lang Pathol 20 (2011), 14–22, 10.1044/1058-0360(2010/09-0105).
Kelchner, L.N., Brehm, S.B., Weinrich, B., et al. Perceptual evaluation of severe pediatric voice disorders: rater reliability using the consensus auditory perceptual evaluation of voice. J Voice 24 (2010), 441–449, 10.1016/j.jvoice.2008.09.004.
Mohd Mossadeq, N., Mohd Khairuddin, K.A., Zakaria, M.N., Cross-cultural adaptation of the Consensus Auditory-perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V) into Malay: a validity study. J Voice, S0892-1997, 2022, 00151-5, 10.1016/j.jvoice.2022.05.018.
Núñez-Batalla, F., Morato-Galán, M., García-López, I., et al. Validation of the Spanish adaptation of the Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V). Acta Otorrinolaringol (Engl Ed) 66 (2015), 249–257, 10.1016/j.otoeng.2015.08.001.
Joshi, A., Baheti, I., Angadi, V., Cultural and linguistic adaptation of the Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V) into Hindi. J Speech Lang Hear Res 63 (2020), 3974–3981, 10.1044/2020_JSLHR-20-00348.
de Almeida, S.C., Mendes, A.P., Kempster, G.B., The Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V) psychometric characteristics: II European Portuguese version (II EP CAPE-V). J Voice 33 (2019), 582.e5–582.e13, 10.1016/j.jvoice.2018.02.013.
Ertan-Schlüter, E., Demirhan, E., Ünsal, E.M., et al. The Turkish version of the Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V): a reliability and validity study. J Voice 34 (2020), 965.e13–965.e22, 10.1016/j.jvoice.2019.05.014.
Kondo, K., Mizuta, M., Kawai, Y., et al. Development and validation of the Japanese version of the Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice. J Speech Lang Hear Res 64 (2021), 4754–4761, 10.1044/2021_JSLHR-21-00269.
Chen, Z., Fang, R., Zhang, Y., et al. The Mandarin version of the Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V) and its reliability. J Speech Lang Hear Res 61 (2018), 2451–2457, 10.1044/2018_JSLHR-S-17-0386.
Behlau, M., Rocha, B., Englert, M., et al. Validation of the Brazilian Portuguese CAPE-V instrument—Br CAPE-V for auditory-perceptual analysis. J Voice 36 (2022), 586.e15–586.e20, 10.1016/j.jvoice.2020.07.007.
Mozzanica, F., Ginocchio, D., Borghi, E., et al. Reliability and validity of the italian version of the Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V). Folia Phoniatr Logop 65 (2013), 257–265, 10.1159/000356479.
Salary, M.N., Khoddami, S., Drinnan, M., et al. Validity and rater reliability of Persian version of the Consensus Auditory Perceptual Evaluation of Voice. Aud Vestib Res 23 (2017), 65–74.
Gunjawate, D.R., Ravi, R., Bhagavan, S., Reliability and validity of the Kannada version of the Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice. J Speech Lang Hear Res 63 (2020), 385–392, 10.1044/2019_JSLHR-19-00020.
Özcebe, E., Aydinli, F.E., Tiğrak, T.K., et al. Reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V). J Voice 33 (2019), 382.e1–382.e10, 10.1016/j.jvoice.2017.11.013.
Venkatraman, Y., Mahalingam, S., Boominathan, P., Development and validation of sentences in Tamil for psychoacoustic evaluation of voice using the Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice. J Speech Lang Hear Res 65 (2022), 4539–4556, 10.1044/2022_JSLHR-22-00169.
Dabirmoghaddam, P., Khoramshahi, H., Dehqan, A., et al. Construct and discriminant validity of the Persian version of the Consensus Auditory Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V). J Voice 36 (2022), 876.e9–876.e15, 10.1016/j.jvoice.2020.09.023.
Narea-Veas, M.S., Farías, P.G., Vázquez Fernández, P., Consensus Auditory Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V): revisión sistemática de los métodos utilizados para su adaptación y validación. Rev Investig Innov Cienc Salud 5 (2023), 178–204, 10.46634/riics.206.
McMillan, S.S., King, M., Tully, M.P., How to use the nominal group and Delphi techniques. Int J Clin Pharm 38 (2016), 655–662, 10.1007/s11096-016-0257-x.
Romero-Collado, A., Elementos esenciales para elaborar un estudio con el método (e)Delphi. Enferm Intensiva 32 (2021), 100–104, 10.1016/j.enfi.2020.09.001.
Birko, S., Dove, E.S., Özdemir, V., et al. Evaluation of nine consensus indices in Delphi foresight research and their dependency on delphi survey characteristics: a simulation study and debate on Delphi design and interpretation. PLoS One 10 (2015), 1–14, 10.1371/journal.pone.0135162.
Linstone HA, Turoff M. The Delphi Method: Techniques and Applications. Turoff M. Linstone HA, eds. New Jersey Institute of Technology; Newark, NJ, 2002.
Letrilliart, L., Vanmeerbeek, M., À la recherche du consensus: quelle méthode utiliser?. Exercer 22 (2011), 170–177.
Cunningham, B.J., Kwok, E., Turkstra, L., et al. Establishing consensus among community clinicians on how to categorize and define preschoolers’ speech and language impairments at assessment. J Commun Disord, 82, 2019, 105925, 10.1016/j.jcomdis.2019.105925.
Denman, D., Kim, J.H., Munro, N., et al. Describing language assessments for school-aged children: a Delphi study. Int J Speech Lang Pathol 21 (2019), 602–612, 10.1080/17549507.2018.1552716.
von der Gracht, H.A., Consensus measurement in Delphi studies. Review and implications for future quality assurance. Technol Forecast Soc Change 79 (2012), 1525–1536, 10.1016/j.techfore.2012.04.013.
Diamond, I.R., Grant, R.C., Feldman, B.M., et al. Defining consensus: a systematic review recommends methodologic criteria for reporting of Delphi studies. J Clin Epidemiol 67 (2014), 401–409, 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.12.002.
Chalmers, J., Armour, M., The Delphi technique. Liamputtong, P., (eds.) Handbook of Research Methods in Health Social Sciences, 2019, Springer, Singapore, 715–735, 10.1007/978-981-10-5251-4_99.
Sinha, I.P., Smyth, R.L., Williamson, P.R., Using the Delphi technique to determine which outcomes to measure in clinical trials: recommendations for the future based on a systematic review of existing studies. PLoS Med, 8, 2011, e1000393, 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000393.
McMillan, S.S., Kelly, F., Sav, A., et al. Using the nominal group technique: how to analyse across multiple groups. Health Serv Outcomes Res Methodol 14 (2014), 92–108, 10.1007/s10742-014-0121-1.
Powell, C., The Delphi technique: myths and realities. J Adv Nurs 41 (2003), 376–382, 10.1046/j.1365-2648.2003.02537.x.
McPherson, S., Reese, C., Wendler, M.C., Methodology update: Delphi studies. Nurs Res 67 (2018), 404–410, 10.1097/NNR.0000000000000297.
Safikhani, S., Gries, K.S., Trudeau, J.J., et al. Response scale selection in adult pain measures: results from a literature review. J Patient Rep Outcomes, 2, 2018, 40, 10.1186/s41687-018-0053-6.
Byrom, B., Elash, C.A., Eremenco, S., et al. Measurement comparability of electronic and paper administration of visual analogue scales: a review of published studies. Ther Innov Regul Sci 56 (2022), 394–404, 10.1007/s43441-022-00376-2.
Wewers, M.E., Lowe, N.K., A critical review of visual analogue scales in the measurement of clinical phenomena. Res Nurs Health 13 (1990), 227–236, 10.1002/nur.4770130405.
Martins, P.C., Couto, T.E., Gama, A.C.C., Auditory-perceptual evaluation of the degree of vocal deviation: correlation between the Visual Analogue Scale and Numerical Scale. Codas 27 (2015), 279–284, 10.1590/2317-1782/20152014167.
San Segundo, E., Skarnitzl, R., A computer-based tool for the assessment of voice quality through Visual Analogue Scales: VAS-simplified vocal profile analysis. J Voice 35 (2021), 497.e9–497.e21, 10.1016/j.jvoice.2019.10.007.
Naunheim, M.R., Dai, J.B., Rubinstein, B.J., et al. A visual analog scale for patient-reported voice outcomes: the VAS voice. Laryngoscope Investig Otolaryngol 5 (2020), 90–95, 10.1002/lio2.333.
Wuyts, F.L., De Bodt, M.S., Van de Heyning, P.H., Is the reliability of a visual analog scale higher than an ordinal scale? An experiment with the GRBAS scale for the perceptual evaluation of dysphonia. J Voice 13 (1999), 508–517, 10.1016/S0892-1997(99)80006-X.
Hawker, G.A., Mian, S., Kendzerska, T., et al. Measures of adult pain: Visual Analog Scale for Pain (VAS Pain), Numeric Rating Scale for Pain (NRS Pain), McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ), Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ), Chronic Pain Grade Scale (CPGS), Short Form-36 Bodily Pain Scale (SF-36 BPS), and Measure of Intermittent and Constant Osteoarthritis Pain (ICOAP). Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken), 63(suppl 11), 2011, 10.1002/acr.20543.
Rouve, S., Didier, A., Demoly, P., et al. Numeric score and visual analog scale in assessing seasonal allergic rhinitis severity. Rhinol J 48 (2010), 285–291, 10.4193/Rhino09.208.
Vas, A., D'sa, P., Daud, H., Kulkarni, A., et al. Perceived barriers to participation in clinical research amongst trauma and orthopaedic community: a survey of 148 consultants and junior doctors in Wales. Cureus, 13, 2021, e19694, 10.7759/cureus.19694.
Ciemins, E.L., Mollis, B.L., Brant, J.M., et al. Clinician engagement in research as a path toward the learning health system: a regional survey across the northwestern United States. Health Serv Manage Res 33 (2020), 33–42, 10.1177/0951484819858830.
Williams, J., Craig, T.J., Robson, D., Barriers and facilitators of clinician and researcher collaborations: a qualitative study. BMC Health Serv Res, 20, 2020, 1126, 10.1186/s12913-020-05978-w.
Goldstein, K.M., Gierisch, J.M., Tucker, M., et al. Options for meaningful engagement in clinical research for busy frontline clinicians. J Gen Intern Med 36 (2021), 2100–2104, 10.1007/s11606-020-06587-3.
Niederberger, M., Köberich, S., Coming to consensus: the Delphi technique. Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 20 (2021), 692–695, 10.1093/eurjcn/zvab059.
Jacobson, B.H., Johnson, A., Grywalski, C., et al. The Voice Handicap Index (VHI). Am J Speech Lang Pathol 6 (1997), 66–70, 10.1044/1058-0360.0603.66.