American journal of speech-language pathology · 2010
Establishing validity of the Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V).
Контролируемое клиническое исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАВалидационное 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.
Zraick Richard I, Kempster Gail B, Connor Nadine P, Thibeault Susan, Klaben Bernice K, Bursac Zoran, Thrush Carol R, Glaze Leslie E
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V) was developed to provide a protocol and form for clinicians to use when assessing the voice quality of adults with voice disorders (Kempster, Gerratt, Verdolini Abbott, Barkmeier-Kramer, & Hillman, 2009). This study examined the reliability and the empirical validity of the CAPE-V when used by experienced voice clinicians judging normal and disordered voices.
METHOD: The validity of the CAPE-V was examined in 2 ways. First, we compared judgments made by 21 raters of 22 normal and 37 disordered voices using the CAPE-V and the GRBAS (grade, roughness, breathiness, asthenia, strain; see Hirano, 1981) scales. Second, we compared our raters' judgments of overall severity to a priori consensus judgments of severity for the 59 voices.
RESULTS: Intrarater reliability coefficients for the CAPE-V ranged from .82 for breathiness to .35 for strain; interrater reliability ranged from .76 for overall severity to .28 for pitch.
CONCLUSIONS: Although both CAPE-V and GRBAS reliability coefficients varied across raters and parameters, this study reports slightly improved rater reliability using the CAPE-V to make perceptual judgments of voice quality in comparison to the GRBAS scale. The results provide evidence for the empirical (concurrent) validity of the CAPE-V.
METHOD: The validity of the CAPE-V was examined in 2 ways. First, we compared judgments made by 21 raters of 22 normal and 37 disordered voices using the CAPE-V and the GRBAS (grade, roughness, breathiness, asthenia, strain; see Hirano, 1981) scales. Second, we compared our raters' judgments of overall severity to a priori consensus judgments of severity for the 59 voices.
RESULTS: Intrarater reliability coefficients for the CAPE-V ranged from .82 for breathiness to .35 for strain; interrater reliability ranged from .76 for overall severity to .28 for pitch.
CONCLUSIONS: Although both CAPE-V and GRBAS reliability coefficients varied across raters and parameters, this study reports slightly improved rater reliability using the CAPE-V to make perceptual judgments of voice quality in comparison to the GRBAS scale. The results provide evidence for the empirical (concurrent) validity of the CAPE-V.