Zhonghua er bi yan hou tou jing wai ke za zhi = Chinese journal of otorhinolaryngology head and neck surgery · 2013
[Application research on RBH perceptual evaluation of voice disorders].
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.
Li Yan, Zheng Hong-liang, Wang Wei, Li Meng, Chen Shi-cai, Chen Dong-hui
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the reliability of RBH perceptual evaluation system, and the correlation between its perceptual and acoustic parameters inorder to providing the evidence for clinic practice.
METHODS: The voice samples were collected from 100 patients with variable dysphonia and 15 normal people. According to the R, B, H parameters of the RBH system,voice samples were rated on 4-point scale from 0 to 3. The interrater agreement and intrarater reliability were tested. The differences of the acoustic parameters between adjacent ranks in the perceptual parameters were investigated. The correlation between perceptual parameters and acoustic parameters were also studied.
RESULTS: The interrater agreement and intrarater reliability were good. Intrarater reliability was varying from 0.428 to 0.608 using Kappa coefficient; intraclass correlation coefficients for interrater agreement were 0.741-0.797 and 0.689-0.762 in the twice perceptual assessments. The differences of the acoustic parameters between adjacent ranks in the perceptual parameters (R, B, H) were significant (P < 0.05). The perceptual parameters (R, B, H) were significantly correlated with the acoustic parameters (Jitter, Shimmer, HNR, MPT and DSI, with r varying from 0.360 to 0.551 or from -0.472 to -0.620, P < 0.01).
CONCLUSION: The reliability of RBH perceptual evaluation system is good; its 4-point scale is acceptable; the perceptual parameters are correlated with the acoustic parameters; the RBH system has broad prospects in clinic practice.
METHODS: The voice samples were collected from 100 patients with variable dysphonia and 15 normal people. According to the R, B, H parameters of the RBH system,voice samples were rated on 4-point scale from 0 to 3. The interrater agreement and intrarater reliability were tested. The differences of the acoustic parameters between adjacent ranks in the perceptual parameters were investigated. The correlation between perceptual parameters and acoustic parameters were also studied.
RESULTS: The interrater agreement and intrarater reliability were good. Intrarater reliability was varying from 0.428 to 0.608 using Kappa coefficient; intraclass correlation coefficients for interrater agreement were 0.741-0.797 and 0.689-0.762 in the twice perceptual assessments. The differences of the acoustic parameters between adjacent ranks in the perceptual parameters (R, B, H) were significant (P < 0.05). The perceptual parameters (R, B, H) were significantly correlated with the acoustic parameters (Jitter, Shimmer, HNR, MPT and DSI, with r varying from 0.360 to 0.551 or from -0.472 to -0.620, P < 0.01).
CONCLUSION: The reliability of RBH perceptual evaluation system is good; its 4-point scale is acceptable; the perceptual parameters are correlated with the acoustic parameters; the RBH system has broad prospects in clinic practice.