Steen I N, MacKenzie K, Carding P N, Webb A, Deary I J, Wilson J A
Institute of Health and Society, Newcastle University, UK.
J Laryngol Otol. 2008 Jan;122(1):46-51. doi: 10.1017/S0022215107007839. Epub 2007 May 14.
A wide range of well validated instruments is now available to assess voice quality and voice-related quality of life, but comparative studies of the responsiveness to change of these measures are lacking. The aim of this study was to assess the responsiveness to change of a range of different measures, following voice therapy and surgery.
Longitudinal, cohort comparison study.
Two UK voice clinics.
One hundred and forty-four patients referred for treatment of benign voice disorders, 90 undergoing voice therapy and 54 undergoing laryngeal microsurgery.
Three measures of self-reported voice quality (the vocal performance questionnaire, the voice handicap index and the voice symptom scale), plus the short form 36 (SF 36) general health status measure and the hospital anxiety and depression score. Perceptual, observer-rated analysis of voice quality was performed using the grade-roughness-breathiness-asthenia-strain scale. We compared the effect sizes (i.e. responsiveness to change) of the principal subscales of all measures before and after voice therapy or phonosurgery.
All three self-reported voice measures had large effect sizes following either voice therapy or surgery. Outcomes were similar in both treatment groups. The effect sizes for the observer-rated grade-roughness-breathiness-asthenia-strain scale scores were smaller, although still moderate. The roughness subscale in particular showed little change after therapy or surgery. Only small effects were observed in general health and mood measures.
The results suggest that the use of a voice-specific questionnaire is essential for assessing the effectiveness of voice interventions. All three self-reported measures tested were capable of detecting change, and scores were highly correlated. On the basis of this evaluation of different measures' sensitivities to change, there is no strong evidence to favour either the vocal performance questionnaire, the voice handicap index or the voice symptom scale.
目前有大量经过充分验证的工具可用于评估嗓音质量和与嗓音相关的生活质量,但缺乏对这些指标变化反应性的比较研究。本研究的目的是评估一系列不同指标在嗓音治疗和手术后对变化的反应性。
纵向队列比较研究。
英国的两家嗓音诊所。
144例因良性嗓音疾病前来治疗的患者,其中90例接受嗓音治疗,54例接受喉显微手术。
三项自我报告的嗓音质量指标(嗓音表现问卷、嗓音障碍指数和嗓音症状量表),以及简短健康调查问卷36项简表(SF-36)的总体健康状况指标和医院焦虑抑郁量表评分。使用粗糙度-气息声-无力-紧张量表对嗓音质量进行感知性、观察者评分分析。我们比较了嗓音治疗或嗓音手术后所有指标主要子量表的效应大小(即对变化的反应性)。
无论是嗓音治疗还是手术后,所有三项自我报告的嗓音指标都有较大的效应大小。两个治疗组的结果相似。观察者评分的粗糙度-气息声-无力-紧张量表得分的效应大小较小,尽管仍为中等。特别是粗糙度子量表在治疗或手术后变化不大。在总体健康和情绪指标方面仅观察到较小的效应。
结果表明,使用特定于嗓音的问卷对于评估嗓音干预的有效性至关重要。所测试的所有三项自我报告指标都能够检测到变化,且得分高度相关。基于对不同指标对变化敏感性的评估,没有强有力的证据支持嗓音表现问卷、嗓音障碍指数或嗓音症状量表中的任何一项。