Coelho Ana Cristina, Brasolotto Alcione Ghedini, Fernandes Ana Carolina Nascimento, de Souza Medved Daniela Malta, da Silva Eduardo Magalhães, Júnior Fayez Bahmad
Postgraduate Program in Health Sciences, University of Brasília, Campus Universitário Darcy Ribeiro, Brasília, Distrito Federal 70910-900, Brazil.
Speech-Language Pathology Department, Bauru School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, Al Octávio Pinheiro Brisola, 9-75, Bauru, São Paulo 17012-901, Brazil.
J Voice. 2017 Nov;31(6):774.e1-774.e8. doi: 10.1016/j.jvoice.2017.02.012. Epub 2017 Mar 16.
This study aimed to present an experience in rating voices of adults with normal hearing and adults with cochlear implants and critically examine the outcomes, discussing pros and cons of the methodology used.
This is a cross-sectional, prospective study.
One hundred and fifty voice samples, consisting of 50 sustained vowels, 50 samples of connected speech, and 50 samples of conversational speech, belonging to 25 adults with hearing impairment with cochlear implants and 25 adults with normal hearing, were perceptually analyzed for inter-rater agreement and intra-rater reliability. Three experienced judges rated the voice samples using visual analog scales of parameters considered relevant for cochlear-implanted population such as articulation, intonation, and resonance. The raters participated in three training sessions for calibration and had 1 month to complete the ratings individually. Twenty percent of the samples were repeated randomly to verify intra-rater reliability. The levels of agreement and reliability were verified using the interclass correlation coefficient.
The inter-rater agreement varied widely across the parameters and speech tasks, from poor to excellent agreement. The only parameter for which the raters maintained consistently good or excellent agreement for all groups and emissions was the pitch. For intra-rater reliability, two of the raters presented excellent reliability for most parameters across all of the speech tasks, whereas one rater presented more inconsistencies.
In this reliability study, factors such as extensive deadline for the auditory perceptual evaluation, lack of periodic recalibration, speech tasks, and familiarity with the population studied were identified as factors that contributed to inconsistent reliability results.
本研究旨在介绍对听力正常的成年人与人工耳蜗植入者的嗓音进行评分的经验，并严格审查结果，讨论所使用方法的优缺点。
这是一项横断面前瞻性研究。
对属于25名人工耳蜗植入的听力受损成年人和25名听力正常的成年人的150个嗓音样本进行了感知分析，以评估评分者间的一致性和评分者内的可靠性，这些样本包括50个持续元音、50个连贯语音样本和50个对话语音样本。三名经验丰富的评判员使用视觉模拟量表对嗓音样本进行评分，该量表涉及对人工耳蜗植入人群相关的参数，如清晰度、语调和谐振。评判员参加了三次校准培训课程，并有1个月时间各自完成评分。随机重复20%的样本以验证评分者内的可靠性。使用组内相关系数验证一致性和可靠性水平。
评分者间的一致性在不同参数和言语任务中差异很大，从差到优。所有组和发声中，评判员保持一致良好或优秀一致性的唯一参数是音高。对于评分者内的可靠性，两名评判员在所有言语任务的大多数参数上表现出优秀的可靠性，而一名评判员表现出更多不一致性。
在这项可靠性研究中，可以确定诸如听觉感知评估的期限过长、缺乏定期重新校准、言语任务以及对所研究人群的熟悉程度等因素是导致可靠性结果不一致的因素。
