Fırat Şeyda, Çiyiltepe Müge Müzeyyen, Irklı Furkan Ali
Dörtçelik Children's Diseases Hospital, Bursa, Turkey.
Tarsus University, Faculty of Health Sciences, Speech and Language Therapy Department, Mersin, Turkey.
J Voice. 2024 Jul 18. doi: 10.1016/j.jvoice.2024.06.009.
The aim of this study is to adapt the Glottal Function Index (GFI) into Turkish and to evaluate its validity and reliability.
The scale was initially translated into Turkish by two Speech and Language Pathologists (SLP) and one ear, nose, and throat specialist, and then independently translated back into English by two different SLPs. The translations were compared by an expert proficient in both English and Turkish. The study included a total of 161 participants, with 91 having voice disorders and 70 not having voice disorders. All the participants in the study filled out the Voice Handicap Index (VHI), GFI. Additionally, auditory perceptual evaluation of voice was conducted on participants without voice disorders using the Grade, Roughness, Breathiness, Asthenia, Strain scale by a SLP. For the calculation of the test-retest reliability coefficient, the GFI was conducted again to a total of 64 participants, including 24 with voice disorders and 40 without voice disorders, at intervals of 7-14days. The internal consistency of GFI was examined using Cronbach's alpha coefficient.
The Turkish version of the GFI (GFI-TR) high internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha=0.932). The total GFI scores obtained from the two administrations of the test-retest reliability were examined. It was found that there was a high degree of correlation between the scores obtained in the two administrations (rho=0.972, P < 0.001). The construct validity of the GFI-TR was evaluated by examining the correlation with the VHI. It was observed that there was a high degree of correlation between GFI and VHI (rho=0.844, P < 0.001). Our hypothesis that there would be a statistically significant difference in GFI scores between participants with and without voice disorders has been confirmed. A statistically significant difference in GFI scores between the two groups was observed (U=59.000, z = -10.765, P < 0.001). This supports the Discriminative validity of the GFI-TR.
In conclusion, we believe that the GFI-TR, a brief and easily completed self-assessment tool, is a valid and reliable instrument. We recommend its use as part of the assessment process for voice disorders.
本研究的目的是将声门功能指数（GFI）改编为土耳其语版本，并评估其有效性和可靠性。
该量表最初由两名言语和语言病理学家（SLP）以及一名耳鼻喉科专家翻译成土耳其语，然后由两名不同的SLP独立回译为英语。由一位精通英语和土耳其语的专家对译文进行比较。该研究共纳入161名参与者，其中91名有嗓音障碍，70名无嗓音障碍。研究中的所有参与者均填写了嗓音障碍指数（VHI）、GFI。此外，一名SLP使用等级、粗糙度、气息声、无力、紧张量表对无嗓音障碍的参与者进行了嗓音的听觉感知评估。为计算重测信度系数，对总共64名参与者再次进行了GFI测试，其中包括24名有嗓音障碍者和40名无嗓音障碍者，间隔时间为7 - 14天。使用克朗巴赫α系数检验GFI的内部一致性。
GFI的土耳其语版本（GFI - TR）具有较高的内部一致性（克朗巴赫α = 0.932）。对重测信度两次测试获得的总GFI分数进行了检查。发现两次测试获得的分数之间存在高度相关性（rho = 0.972，P < 0.001）。通过检查与VHI的相关性来评估GFI - TR的结构效度。观察到GFI与VHI之间存在高度相关性（rho = 0.844，P < 0.001）。我们关于有嗓音障碍和无嗓音障碍参与者之间GFI分数存在统计学显著差异的假设得到了证实。观察到两组之间GFI分数存在统计学显著差异（U = 59.000，z = -10.765，P < 0.001）。这支持了GFI - TR的区分效度。
总之，我们认为GFI - TR是一种简短且易于完成的自我评估工具，是一种有效且可靠的工具。我们建议将其用作嗓音障碍评估过程的一部分。
