Mády K, Sader R, Hoole P H, Zimmermann A, Horch H H
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University of Technology, Munich, Germany.
Clin Linguist Phon. 2003 Jun-Aug;17(4-5):411-20. doi: 10.1080/0269920031000079921.
In this study, four methods of postoperative speech evaluation are compared for 19 persons with oral cancers who have undergone oral surgery and/or radiotherapy. The Munich Intelligibility Profile was used for intelligibility testing and semiquantitative scoring by novice listeners. Expert ratings were done on the Therapy Outcome Measure (TOM) Phonological Disability form. For self-evaluation, the EORTC QLQ-C30 and the Head and Neck module was used. Swallowing function was scored on the TOM Dysphagia form. There was a high intercorrelation between the results of subjective speech evaluation by experts and non-experts and the intelligibility test, but no correlation with any of these methods could be shown for the self-evaluation by the participants. Voice quality seemed to have an influence on non-expert scores. Swallowing was a more severe problem for our group than speech impairment.
在本研究中,对19例接受口腔手术和/或放疗的口腔癌患者比较了四种术后言语评估方法。慕尼黑可懂度量表用于由非专业听众进行的可懂度测试和半定量评分。专家根据治疗结果测量(TOM)语音残疾表格进行评分。自我评估采用欧洲癌症研究与治疗组织(EORTC)QLQ-C30问卷及其头颈模块。吞咽功能根据TOM吞咽困难表格进行评分。专家和非专家的主观言语评估结果与可懂度测试之间存在高度相关性,但参与者的自我评估与这些方法均无相关性。嗓音质量似乎对非专家评分有影响。对我们的研究组来说,吞咽问题比言语障碍更严重。