Journal of voice : official journal of the Voice Foundation · 2025
Improving Auditory-Perceptual Voice Assessment: A Hybrid In-Class and Online CAPE-V Training Study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Pommée Timothy, Younes Stéphanie, Gauthier Laetitia, Verduyckt Ingrid
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Auditory-perceptual training is essential to reduce rating variability, yet most studies on hybrid training approaches are scarce, and most emphasize reliability rather than accuracy relative to expert standards.
OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated a hybrid teaching tool combining in-class discussion with optional online practice (All-Voiced) for improving accuracy, reliability, and generalization of consensus auditory-perceptual evaluation of voice (CAPE-V) ratings in speech-language pathology students on both vowels and sentences.
METHODS: Sixty-six graduate students completed a five-step CAPE-V training sequence, including baseline ratings, guided in-class discussion of prototypical samples, repeated ratings, optional online training, and a final test. Students rated Overall Severity, Roughness, and Breathiness relative to expert anchors. Accuracy (mean absolute error, % within 10 mm, and interquartile range [IQR]) and reliability (intraclass correlation coefficients) were analyzed for step, discussion, training, novelty, and sample type effects.
RESULTS: Learners improved significantly after in-class discussion (P < 0.001), with gains largely retained at final testing. Breathiness showed the largest improvement, approaching clinical minimally detectable change thresholds. Optional online training yielded modest additional benefits, significant only for Breathiness (P < 0.001) and for Overall Severity mean absolute error (P = 0.03). Performance generalized less effectively to novel than familiar voices (P ≤ 0.002), except for Overall Severity % within IQR (P = 0.47). Across Step, Discussion, Training, and Novelty conditions, sentences were generally rated more accurately than vowels: they showed consistently lower errors (mean absolute error, P ≤ 0.014) and higher accuracy within 10 mm (P ≤ 0.05), while % within IQR advantages emerged mainly for Roughness (Step and Discussion, P < 0.001) and Breathiness (Training and Novelty, P ≤ 0.002), but not for Overall Severity.
CONCLUSIONS: Hybrid training combining expert-led discussion with online practice improves both accuracy and reliability of CAPE-V ratings in novices. Even modest changes represent important pedagogical gains that support more consistent and valid clinical decision-making.
OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated a hybrid teaching tool combining in-class discussion with optional online practice (All-Voiced) for improving accuracy, reliability, and generalization of consensus auditory-perceptual evaluation of voice (CAPE-V) ratings in speech-language pathology students on both vowels and sentences.
METHODS: Sixty-six graduate students completed a five-step CAPE-V training sequence, including baseline ratings, guided in-class discussion of prototypical samples, repeated ratings, optional online training, and a final test. Students rated Overall Severity, Roughness, and Breathiness relative to expert anchors. Accuracy (mean absolute error, % within 10 mm, and interquartile range [IQR]) and reliability (intraclass correlation coefficients) were analyzed for step, discussion, training, novelty, and sample type effects.
RESULTS: Learners improved significantly after in-class discussion (P < 0.001), with gains largely retained at final testing. Breathiness showed the largest improvement, approaching clinical minimally detectable change thresholds. Optional online training yielded modest additional benefits, significant only for Breathiness (P < 0.001) and for Overall Severity mean absolute error (P = 0.03). Performance generalized less effectively to novel than familiar voices (P ≤ 0.002), except for Overall Severity % within IQR (P = 0.47). Across Step, Discussion, Training, and Novelty conditions, sentences were generally rated more accurately than vowels: they showed consistently lower errors (mean absolute error, P ≤ 0.014) and higher accuracy within 10 mm (P ≤ 0.05), while % within IQR advantages emerged mainly for Roughness (Step and Discussion, P < 0.001) and Breathiness (Training and Novelty, P ≤ 0.002), but not for Overall Severity.
CONCLUSIONS: Hybrid training combining expert-led discussion with online practice improves both accuracy and reliability of CAPE-V ratings in novices. Even modest changes represent important pedagogical gains that support more consistent and valid clinical decision-making.