Development and validation of the singing voice handicap‐10

Cohen, Seth M.; Statham, Melissa McCarty; Rosen, Clark A.; Zullo, Thomas G.

doi:10.1002/lary.20580

Cited by 95 publications

(65 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Diagnostic studies, whether endoscopic or electrophysiologic, do not inform us of its clinical significance. Therefore, functional assessment tools, such as the Voice Handicap Index‐10, Singing Voice Handicap Index‐10, and Glottal Function Index, may have an essential place in studies of paresis. Assessment may be further enhanced by the use of acoustic and aerodynamic assessment, particularly measures that correspond with voice complaints commonly associated with paresis, such as maximum phonation time and mean translaryngeal airflow …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Laryngoscopic and stroboscopic signs in the diagnosis of vocal fold paresis

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Laryngoscopic and stroboscopic signs in the diagnosis of vocal fold paresis

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs) are validated questionnaires filled out by patients to score their symptoms or health status . Over the past 30 years, many PROMs have been used to assess voice disorders . In addition to objective and clinician‐reported outcome measures, these patient‐reported assessments have proven helpful both in terms of clinical decision‐making and also evaluation of interventions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A visual analog scale for patient‐reported voice outcomes: The VAS voice

Naunheim

Dai

Rubinstein

et al. 2019

Laryngoscope Investig Oto

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives Although patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs) can be useful for assessing quality of life, they can be complex and cognitively burdensome. In this study, we prospectively evaluated a simple patient‐reported voice assessment measure on a visual analog scale (VAS voice) and compared it with the Voice Handicap Index (VHI‐10). Study design Prospective survey. Methods An abbreviated voice measure was designed by a team of otolaryngologists, speech pathologists, and patients that consisted of four VAS questions related to (a) a global question of voice disturbance, (b) physical function of voice, (c) functional issues, and (d) emotional handicap. All English‐speaking patients presenting to an academic laryngology clinic for a voice complaint were included. Internal consistency and validity were assessed with comparison to the VHI‐10. Results A total of 209 patients were enrolled. Ninety‐two percent of patients reported understanding the survey. The four‐item VAS survey was highly correlated with VHI‐10 score (Pearson correlation .81, P < .0001), and the Cronbach's alpha between all four VAS questions was .94. Age, gender, and diagnosis were not associated with either the global VAS or VHI‐10 tool. Conclusion Reducing the complexity of instruments assessing voice‐related quality of life is feasible, and the VAS voice correlated with existing measures. Simplified assessments may offer advantages compared to more cumbersome PROMs. Level of Evidence 2c

show abstract

“…We preformed a subset analysis, examining the three quality‐of‐life domains represented in the VHI/VHI‐10, as well as specific question items, in more detail. There is some debate in the literature as to whether the three VHI domains are clinically relevant and independent parameters . Each domain was originally created a priori during development and validation of the VHI .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%