MedElevator Войти в исследования
← Поиск публикаций

DOI 10.1177/0194599813486081

Медицинская библиотека · 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.

Skirko Jonathan R, Weaver Edward M, Perkins Jonathan A, Kinter Sara, Eblen Linda, Sie Kathleen C Y

Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАПеревод пока не подготовлен

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.

Для цитирования: Skirko Jonathan R, Weaver Edward M, Perkins Jonathan A, Kinter Sara, Eblen Linda, Sie Kathleen C Y. Validity and responsiveness of VELO: a velopharyngeal insufficiency quality of life measure.. Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery. 2013. DOI: 10.1177/0194599813486081.

Предметные рубрики MeSH

Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…

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.

Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.