Journal of voice : official journal of the Voice Foundation · 2022
Comparison and Validation of Acoustic Voice Quality Index Version 2 and Version 3 among South Indian Population.
СтатьяВалидационное исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Jayakumar T, Rajasudhakar R, Benoy Jesnu Jose
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Acoustic Voice Quality Index (AVQI) has emerged in the recent past as a robust multiparametric voice quality evaluation tool. Two versions of AVQI derived using the program PRAAT have found extensive clinical and research applications. These versions have been validated in several languages around the world. However, no research reports are available on validation of AVQI in the South Indian population. Further, studies comparing the performance of the two versions of AVQI are limited in the literature.
OBJECTIVES: This study was designed to validate and compare the two versions of AVQI (AVQIv02.02 and AVQIv03.01) in South Indian languages (Malayalam and Kannada).
METHODS: A retrospective analysis of previously recorded voice samples was carried out on a total of 160 (91 normophonic and 69 dysphonic) voice samples. These samples were perceptually rated on a GRBAS scale by five experienced speech-language pathologists. Standardized Syllable Number (SSN) necessary to derive AVQIv03.01 was computed. Following this, these samples were analyzed to obtain the AVQIv02.02 and AVQIv03.01. The concurrent validity and diagnostic accuracy of these measures were then examined and compared.
RESULTS: A moderate agreement was obtained across the judges on perceptual evaluation of voice quality. SSN in Malayalam and Kannada languages were identified to be 29 and 25 syllables respectively. Language differences were not observed on both versions of AVQI. The concurrent validity of AVQIv03.01 (r = 0.788) was superior to that of AVQIv02.02 (r = 0.655). Further, the threshold of differentiating normophonic and dysphonic samples were determined to be >3.45 for AVQIv02.02 and >2.45 for AVQIv03.01.
CONCLUSIONS: AVQIv03.01 is superior to AVQIv02.02 in terms of its diagnostic accuracy and concurrent validity. Current findings also extend the application of AVQI as a robust tool for the evaluation of voice characteristics to the South Indian population.
OBJECTIVES: This study was designed to validate and compare the two versions of AVQI (AVQIv02.02 and AVQIv03.01) in South Indian languages (Malayalam and Kannada).
METHODS: A retrospective analysis of previously recorded voice samples was carried out on a total of 160 (91 normophonic and 69 dysphonic) voice samples. These samples were perceptually rated on a GRBAS scale by five experienced speech-language pathologists. Standardized Syllable Number (SSN) necessary to derive AVQIv03.01 was computed. Following this, these samples were analyzed to obtain the AVQIv02.02 and AVQIv03.01. The concurrent validity and diagnostic accuracy of these measures were then examined and compared.
RESULTS: A moderate agreement was obtained across the judges on perceptual evaluation of voice quality. SSN in Malayalam and Kannada languages were identified to be 29 and 25 syllables respectively. Language differences were not observed on both versions of AVQI. The concurrent validity of AVQIv03.01 (r = 0.788) was superior to that of AVQIv02.02 (r = 0.655). Further, the threshold of differentiating normophonic and dysphonic samples were determined to be >3.45 for AVQIv02.02 and >2.45 for AVQIv03.01.
CONCLUSIONS: AVQIv03.01 is superior to AVQIv02.02 in terms of its diagnostic accuracy and concurrent validity. Current findings also extend the application of AVQI as a robust tool for the evaluation of voice characteristics to the South Indian population.