Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa

Optimising outcome assessment of voice interventions, II: sensitivity to change of self-reported and observer-rated measures

  • I N Steen (a1), K MacKenzie (a2), P N Carding (a3), A Webb (a3), I J Deary (a4) and J A Wilson (a3)...
Abstract
AbstractObjectives:

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.

Design:

Longitudinal, cohort comparison study.

Setting:

Two UK voice clinics.

Participants:

One hundred and forty-four patients referred for treatment of benign voice disorders, 90 undergoing voice therapy and 54 undergoing laryngeal microsurgery.

Main outcome measures:

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.

Results:

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.

Conclusion:

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.

Copyright
Corresponding author
Address for correspondence: Prof. Janet A Wilson, Dept of Otolaryngology Head Neck Surgery, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne NE7 7DN, UK. Fax: (44) 191 223 1246 E-mail: j.a.wilson@ncl.ac.uk
Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

1 A Millar , IJ Deary , JA Wilson , K MacKenzie . Is an organic/functional distinction psychologically meaningful in patients with dysphonia? J Psychosom Res 1999;46:497505

3 IJ Deary , A Webb , K MacKenzie , JA Wilson , PN Carding . Short self-report voice symptom scales: psychometric characteristics of the VHI-10 and the VPQ. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2004;131:232–5

4 BH Jacobson , A Johnson , C Grywalski , A Silbergleit , G Jacobson , MS Benninger . The Voice Handicap Index (VHI): development and validation. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 1997;6:6670

5 MS Benniger , AS Ahuja , G Gardner , C Grywalski . Assessing outcomes for dysphonic patients. J Voice 1998;12:540–50

6 IJ Deary , JA Wilson , PN Carding , K MacKenzie . VoiSS: a patient derived voice symptom scale. J Psychosom Res 2003;54:483–9

7 JA Wilson , AL Webb , PN Carding , IN Steen , K MacKenzie , IJ Deary . Comparing the Voice Symptom Scale (VoiSS) and the Voice Handicap Index: structure and content. Clin Otolaryngol 2004;29:169–74

9 PH Dejonckere , C Obbens , GM de Moor , GH Wieneke . Perceptual evaluation of dysphonia: reliability and relevance. Folia Phoniatrica 1993;45:7683

10 M De Bodt , FL Wuyts , PH Van de Heyning , C Croux . Test-retest of the GRBAS scale: influence of experience and professional background on perceptual ratings of voice quality. J Voice 1997;11:7480

12 C Jenkinson , A Coulter , L Wright . Short-form SF-36 health survey questionnaire: normative data for adults of working age. Br Med J 1993;306:1437–40

13 JE Brazier , R Harper , NMB Jones , A O'Cathain , KJ Thomas , T Usherwood Validating the SF-36 health survey questionnaire: a new outcome measure for primary care. BMJ 1992;305:160–4

14 JA Wilson , A Millar , IJ Deary , K MacKenzie . The quality of life impact of dysphonia. Clin Otolaryngol 2002;27:179–82

15 AS Zigmond , RP Snaith . The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta Psychiatrica Scand 1983;67:361–70

16 J Cohen . Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edn.Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1988

17 LE Kazis , JJ Anderson , RF Meenen . Effect sizes for interpreting changes in health status. Med Care 1989;27(3 Suppl):S178–89

18 K MacKenzie , A Millar , C Sellars , JA Wilson , IJ Deary . Is voice therapy an effective treatment for dysphonia? A randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2001;323:658–61

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

The Journal of Laryngology & Otology
  • ISSN: 0022-2151
  • EISSN: 1748-5460
  • URL: /core/journals/journal-of-laryngology-and-otology
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords: