TY - JOUR
T1 - Psychometric analysis of an ecological vocal effort scale in individuals with and without vocal hyperfunction during activities of daily living
AU - Marks, Katherine L.
AU - Verdi, Alessandra
AU - Toles, Laura E.
AU - Stipancic, Kaila L.
AU - Ortiz, Andrew J.
AU - Hillman, Robert E.
AU - Mehta, Daryush D.
N1 - Funding Information:
was provided by the Voice Health Institute and the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (Grant P50 DC015446 awarded to R. E. H.). The article’s contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. The authors thank Jarrad Van Stan, Annie Fox, Alan Jette, James Burns, and Tiffiny Hron for their contributions. We also thank Brianna Williams and Liane Houde for helping with data organization and quality checking. References.
Funding Information:
Funding was provided by the Voice Health Institute and the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (Grant P50 DC015446 awarded to R. E. H.). The article’s contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. The authors thank Jarrad Van Stan, Annie Fox, Alan Jette, James Burns, and Tiffiny Hron for their contributions. We also thank Brianna Williams and Liane Houde for helping with data organization and quality checking.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 American Speech-Language-Hearing Association.
PY - 2021/11
Y1 - 2021/11
N2 - Objective: The purpose of this study was to examine the psychometric properties of an ecological vocal effort scale linked to a voicing task. Method: Thirty-eight patients with nodules, 18 patients with muscle tension dysphonia, and 45 vocally healthy control individuals participated in a week of ambulatory voice monitoring. A global vocal status question was asked hourly throughout the day. Participants produced a vowel–consonant– vowel syllable string and rated the vocal effort needed to produce the task on a visual analog scale. Test–retest reliability was calculated for a subset using the intraclass correlation coefficient, ICC(A, 1). Construct validity was assessed by (a) comparing the weeklong vocal effort ratings between the patient and control groups and (b) comparing weeklong vocal effort ratings before and after voice rehabilitation in a subset of 25 patients. Cohen’s d, the standard error of measurement (SEM), and the minimal detectable change (MDC) assessed sensitivity. The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) assessed responsiveness. Results: Test–retest reliability was excellent, ICC(A, 1) = .96. Weeklong mean effort was statistically higher in the patients than in controls (d = 1.62) and lower after voice rehabilitation (d = 1.75), supporting construct validity and sensitivity. SEM was 4.14, MDC was 11.47, and MCID was 9.74. Since the MCID was within the error of the measure, we must rely upon the MDC to detect real changes in ecological vocal effort. Conclusion: The ecological vocal effort scale offers a reliable, valid, and sensitive method of monitoring vocal effort changes during the daily life of individuals with and without vocal hyperfunction.
AB - Objective: The purpose of this study was to examine the psychometric properties of an ecological vocal effort scale linked to a voicing task. Method: Thirty-eight patients with nodules, 18 patients with muscle tension dysphonia, and 45 vocally healthy control individuals participated in a week of ambulatory voice monitoring. A global vocal status question was asked hourly throughout the day. Participants produced a vowel–consonant– vowel syllable string and rated the vocal effort needed to produce the task on a visual analog scale. Test–retest reliability was calculated for a subset using the intraclass correlation coefficient, ICC(A, 1). Construct validity was assessed by (a) comparing the weeklong vocal effort ratings between the patient and control groups and (b) comparing weeklong vocal effort ratings before and after voice rehabilitation in a subset of 25 patients. Cohen’s d, the standard error of measurement (SEM), and the minimal detectable change (MDC) assessed sensitivity. The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) assessed responsiveness. Results: Test–retest reliability was excellent, ICC(A, 1) = .96. Weeklong mean effort was statistically higher in the patients than in controls (d = 1.62) and lower after voice rehabilitation (d = 1.75), supporting construct validity and sensitivity. SEM was 4.14, MDC was 11.47, and MCID was 9.74. Since the MCID was within the error of the measure, we must rely upon the MDC to detect real changes in ecological vocal effort. Conclusion: The ecological vocal effort scale offers a reliable, valid, and sensitive method of monitoring vocal effort changes during the daily life of individuals with and without vocal hyperfunction.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85118801775&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85118801775&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1044/2021_AJSLP-21-00111
DO - 10.1044/2021_AJSLP-21-00111
M3 - Article
C2 - 34665647
AN - SCOPUS:85118801775
SN - 1058-0360
VL - 30
SP - 2589
EP - 2604
JO - American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology
JF - American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology
IS - 6
ER -