Journal of voice : official journal of the Voice Foundation · 2013
Audio-perceptual evaluation of Portuguese voice disorders-an inter- and intrajudge reliability 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.
Vaz Freitas Susana, Pestana Pedro Melo, Almeida Vítor, Ferreira Aníbal
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: The aim of this article was to describe the results of an audio-perceptual evaluation carried out by 10 judges, on a database comprising 90 voice recordings plus 10 samples repetition, with the purpose of characterizing the intra- and interrater reliability.
STUDY DESIGN: Exploratory, transversal.
METHODS: The classification of the GRBAS parameters was obtained for each one of the 10 experts, concerning the 90 voice samples. The intraclass correlation coefficient determined the interrater reliability. For the 10 repeated voices, the intrarater reliability was assessed by means of a dispersion analysis.
RESULTS: The average judges' classification for each of the GRBAS parameters differs (P < 0.05). The values of the correlations, with confidence intervals of 95%, between the average scores for all components of the GRBAS scale lie, in general, between 0.838 and 0.966. The first three parameters of the scale (G, R, and B) have the higher interrater reliability. Differences were statistically significant (P < 0.05) for experts 1, 6, 9, and 10, which means a poor intrarater reliability for 40% of the judges.
CONCLUSIONS: All the experts had similar evaluation criteria for the assessment of the five parameters of the GRBAS scale (the values of the confidence intervals at 95% of the experts average ratings of the GRB were above 0.8). However, its quantification is not statistically similar. Asthenia and Strain have lower reliability. Most experts do not reveal statistically significant differences between the values assigned to the GRB parameters (P > 0.05).
STUDY DESIGN: Exploratory, transversal.
METHODS: The classification of the GRBAS parameters was obtained for each one of the 10 experts, concerning the 90 voice samples. The intraclass correlation coefficient determined the interrater reliability. For the 10 repeated voices, the intrarater reliability was assessed by means of a dispersion analysis.
RESULTS: The average judges' classification for each of the GRBAS parameters differs (P < 0.05). The values of the correlations, with confidence intervals of 95%, between the average scores for all components of the GRBAS scale lie, in general, between 0.838 and 0.966. The first three parameters of the scale (G, R, and B) have the higher interrater reliability. Differences were statistically significant (P < 0.05) for experts 1, 6, 9, and 10, which means a poor intrarater reliability for 40% of the judges.
CONCLUSIONS: All the experts had similar evaluation criteria for the assessment of the five parameters of the GRBAS scale (the values of the confidence intervals at 95% of the experts average ratings of the GRB were above 0.8). However, its quantification is not statistically similar. Asthenia and Strain have lower reliability. Most experts do not reveal statistically significant differences between the values assigned to the GRB parameters (P > 0.05).