Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery · 2013
Validity and responsiveness of VELO: a velopharyngeal insufficiency quality of life measure.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Skirko Jonathan R, Weaver Edward M, Perkins Jonathan A, Kinter Sara, Eblen Linda, Sie Kathleen C Y
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Test the Velopharyngeal Insufficiency (VPI) Effects on Life Outcomes (VELO) instrument for validity, reliability, and responsiveness.
STUDY DESIGN: Observational cohort.
SETTING: Academic tertiary medical center.
SUBJECTS: Children with VPI (n = 59) and their parents (n = 84) were prospectively enrolled from a pediatric VPI clinic.
METHODS: Pediatric speech language pathologists diagnosed VPI using perceptual speech analysis and rated VPI severity and speech intelligibility deficit (each as minimal, mild, moderate, or severe). All parents and youth 8+ years old (n = 24) completed the VELO instrument and other quality-of-life questionnaires at baseline; the first 40 subjects completed the VELO instrument again 2 weeks later. Treatments included Furlow palatoplasty (n = 20), sphincter pharyngoplasty (n = 14), or an obturator (n = 2), and 29 of 36 (81%) subjects completed the questionnaires 3 months posttreatment. VELO was tested with correlations for criterion validity against VPI severity, construct validity against speech intelligibility and velopharyngeal gap size, and concurrent validity against other quality-of-life measures (r > .40 demonstrating validity); for test-retest reliability using intraclass correlation (>.6 demonstrating reliability); and for responsiveness with the 3-month posttreatment measure using the paired t test.
RESULTS: Parental responses are reported; youth responses showed similar results. The VELO instrument did not meet criterion validity (r = -.18, P = .10), or functional construct validity (r = -.37, P = .001), but did meet anatomic construct and concurrent validity (each r > .50, P < .01). VELO scores demonstrated excellent test-retest reliability (r = .85, P < .001) and responsiveness (baseline 54 ± 14 to posttreatment 70 ± 18, P < .001).
CONCLUSION: VELO provides a VPI-specific quality-of-life instrument that demonstrates concurrent validity, test-retest reliability, and responsiveness to change in quality of life with treatment.
STUDY DESIGN: Observational cohort.
SETTING: Academic tertiary medical center.
SUBJECTS: Children with VPI (n = 59) and their parents (n = 84) were prospectively enrolled from a pediatric VPI clinic.
METHODS: Pediatric speech language pathologists diagnosed VPI using perceptual speech analysis and rated VPI severity and speech intelligibility deficit (each as minimal, mild, moderate, or severe). All parents and youth 8+ years old (n = 24) completed the VELO instrument and other quality-of-life questionnaires at baseline; the first 40 subjects completed the VELO instrument again 2 weeks later. Treatments included Furlow palatoplasty (n = 20), sphincter pharyngoplasty (n = 14), or an obturator (n = 2), and 29 of 36 (81%) subjects completed the questionnaires 3 months posttreatment. VELO was tested with correlations for criterion validity against VPI severity, construct validity against speech intelligibility and velopharyngeal gap size, and concurrent validity against other quality-of-life measures (r > .40 demonstrating validity); for test-retest reliability using intraclass correlation (>.6 demonstrating reliability); and for responsiveness with the 3-month posttreatment measure using the paired t test.
RESULTS: Parental responses are reported; youth responses showed similar results. The VELO instrument did not meet criterion validity (r = -.18, P = .10), or functional construct validity (r = -.37, P = .001), but did meet anatomic construct and concurrent validity (each r > .50, P < .01). VELO scores demonstrated excellent test-retest reliability (r = .85, P < .001) and responsiveness (baseline 54 ± 14 to posttreatment 70 ± 18, P < .001).
CONCLUSION: VELO provides a VPI-specific quality-of-life instrument that demonstrates concurrent validity, test-retest reliability, and responsiveness to change in quality of life with treatment.