Lee M, Drinnan M, Carding P
Speech and Language Therapy Department, Royal Free Hampstead NHS Trust, London.
Clin Otolaryngol. 2005 Aug;30(4):357-61. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2273.2005.01022.x.
To provide preliminary data on the reliability and validity of dysphonic patients rating their own voice quality.
Prospective reliability/validity assessment of voice ratings in dysphonic patients.
The Royal Free Hampstead NHS Primary Care Trust.
Thirty-five adult dysphonia patients recruited from ENT referrals to a speech and language therapy department. Exclusion criteria were (i) a hearing impairment which may affect auditory discrimination and (ii) a diagnosis of cognitive impairment which may affect task comprehension.
Patient intra-rater reliability was assessed by test-retest ratings, using G (Grade), R (Rough), B (Breathy), A (Asthenic), S (Strained) (GRBAS). Validity was assessed by comparing (i) patient-clinician inter-rater reliability, (ii) patients' GRBAS ratings with their Vocal Performance Questionnaire (VPQ) responses.
(i) Patients had lower intrarater reliability than clinicians (for G of GRBAS, kappa = 0.51 versus 0.74); (ii) patients consistently rated their voices more severely than clinicians (for G of GRBAS, mean rating = 1.4 versus 1.0); (iii) clinician-patient inter-rater agreement was no better than chance (paired t-test, all P < 0.05); (iv) patient ratings correlated significantly with vocal performance scores (r > 0.4, P < 0.05).
Patients appear to have good validity and consistency using GRBAS as a self-perception tool. However, validity measured in terms of agreement with clinician ratings is poor. Voice patients may rate what they perceive rather than what they hear. Disagreement between patient and clinician ratings has implications for therapy aims, prognosis, patient expectations and outcomes. Where disagreement persists, the clinician may have to determine whether therapy priorities need redesigning to reflect patients' perceived needs, or to evaluate whether patient perceptions and expectations are unrealistic.
提供有关嗓音障碍患者自评嗓音质量的可靠性和有效性的初步数据。
对嗓音障碍患者的嗓音评级进行前瞻性可靠性/有效性评估。
皇家自由汉普斯特德国民保健服务初级保健信托基金。
从耳鼻喉科转诊至言语和语言治疗科的35名成年嗓音障碍患者。排除标准为:(i)可能影响听觉辨别力的听力障碍;(ii)可能影响任务理解的认知障碍诊断。
通过重测评级评估患者内部评级者的可靠性,采用G(等级)、R(粗糙)、B(呼吸音)、A(无力)、S(紧张)(GRBAS)。通过比较(i)患者-临床医生之间的评级者可靠性,(ii)患者的GRBAS评级与其嗓音表现问卷(VPQ)的回答来评估有效性。
(i)患者的内部评级者可靠性低于临床医生(对于GRBAS的G,kappa值分别为0.51和0.74);(ii)患者对自己嗓音的评级始终比临床医生更严重(对于GRBAS的G,平均评级分别为1.4和1.0);(iii)临床医生-患者之间的评级者一致性不比随机情况好(配对t检验,所有P<0.05);(iv)患者评级与嗓音表现得分显著相关(r>0.4,P<0.05)。
患者使用GRBAS作为自我认知工具似乎具有良好的有效性和一致性。然而,与临床医生评级的一致性所衡量的有效性较差。嗓音障碍患者可能评价的是他们所感知到的,而非他们所听到的。患者和临床医生评级之间的差异对治疗目标、预后、患者期望和结果都有影响。当差异持续存在时,临床医生可能需要确定是否需要重新设计治疗重点以反映患者所感知到的需求,或者评估患者的感知和期望是否不切实际。