DigitalVHI—a freeware open-source software application to capture the Voice Handicap Index and other questionnaire data in various languages

Herbst, Christian T.; Oh, Jinook; Vydrová, Jitka; Švec, Jan G.

doi:10.3109/14015439.2013.830769

Cited by 10 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In Denmark, the Max Manus software is used (Martin Wirenfeldt Nielsen, Danskpatologiselsab, personal communication 2019), although the Digital Voice Handicap Index software application has been designed for languages that also include Danish and Czech. 79 In the Czech Republic, the prevalent option among voice disorder clinicians is the GRBAS scale (Miroslava Hrbková, Phoniatrics Clinic in Prague, Mojmír Lejska and Radan Havlík, Centre for Speech, Voice and Hearing Impediments in Brno, personal communication 2019). Second and more importantly, our goal is to describe speech as linguistic behavior in a communicative setting.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Normophonic Breathiness in Czech and Danish: Are Females Breathier Than Males?

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study compares the voice quality of female and male speech in two languages: Czech, a Slavic language, and Danish, a Germanic language. For both languages, the results based on a total of 120 vocally healthy speakers are in line with the claim that females are universally breathier than males. This was supported by the Cepstral Peak Prominence (CPP) and H1*-H2* measures, which are generally known as the most robust correlates of breathiness, and also by the H1*-A3* measure. However, the sex distinction was unsupported or even contradictory when using some other measures suggested to reflect breathiness, which provides an incentive to insist on employing a number of acoustic measures in future voice research. The perceptual component of the study nevertheless suggests that these contradictory findings are due to differences in perceived roughness rather than breathiness, and that CPP and H1*-H2* do reflect breathiness differences, and CPP in particular. We therefore conclude that it is indeed the case that female speakers are breathier than male speakers. Finally, in terms of the two robust measures (CPP and H1*-H2*), no language-specific differences in the magnitude of the effect of sex on breathiness were found.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Normophonic Breathiness in Czech and Danish: Are Females Breathier Than Males?

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Clinically relevant critical difference scores of the total VHI‐30 score have been interpreted as meaningful when the difference is minimally 13 points. This score corresponds to an average cut‐off score from various test‐retest studies of VHI total scores ranging from 8 to 18 10,26‐28 . Included studies minimally reported the number of subjects per group, the mean results between pre‐ and post‐treatment outcomes and standard deviation (SD) values of the differences of change or p‐values of the pre‐post outcomes.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This score corresponds to an average cut-off score from various test-retest studies of VHI total scores ranging from 8 to 18. 10,[26][27][28] Included studies minimally reported the number of subjects per group, the mean results between pre-and post-treatment outcomes and standard deviation (SD) values of the differences of change or p-values of the pre-post outcomes. Finally, scientific reports were considered in English and German languages.…”

Section: Keypointsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The VHI is a popular clinical tool used to quantify the impact of a voice disorder on daily voice‐related activities. More than twenty VHI‐30 validation studies in different languages have been published 10 . Further studies of the VHI‐30 evaluated the potential reduction of questions, 11‐13 its application to various populations with voice disorders, 14‐22 the relationship to objective measurements, 17,23‐25 test‐retest differences 10,26‐28 and its applicability as screening tool 28 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…More than twenty VHI-30 validation studies in different languages have been published. 10 Further studies of the VHI-30 evaluated the potential reduction of questions, [11][12][13] its application to various populations with voice disorders, [14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22] the relationship to objective measurements, 17,[23][24][25] test-retest differences 10,[26][27][28] and its applicability as screening tool. 28 The VHI has been used by numerous studies to measure the effect of voice therapy; its sensitivity treatment-associated voice changes have established it as a useful voice assessment tool.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The effectiveness of voice therapy on voice‐related handicap: A network meta‐analysis

Latoszek

Neumann

2020

Clinical Otolaryngology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Treatment approaches for voice therapy are diverse, yet their differential effects are not well understood. Evaluations of treatment effects across approaches are important for clinical guidance and evidence‐based practice. Objective of review To quantify the evidence of treatment effectiveness on the outcome measure Voice Handicap Index with the 30‐items (VHI‐30) from existing randomised controlled/clinical trials (RCT) of voice therapy using the statistical approach of a network meta‐analysis (NMA) with a random effects model. Type of review Meta‐analysis. Search strategy We searched in MEDLINE (PubMed, 1950 to 2019), Embase (1974 to 2019) and Science Citation Index (1994 to 2019) using five key terms. The inclusion criteria were reports of randomised controlled/clinical trials (RCTs) published in English or German which evaluated the effectiveness of a specific voice therapy treatment using VHI‐30 as an outcome measure in adult participants with non‐organic or organic voice disorders. Studies were excluded if participants had been diagnosed with neurological motor speech disorders or who were vocally healthy. Furthermore, no medical, pharmacological or instrumental (eg voice amplification) treatments were considered. Evaluation method The primary outcome variable was VHI‐30 with a score from 0 to 120. The pre‐post treatment change in VHI‐30 scores was an average score of 13 points related to various VHI‐30 test‐retest results. Results We retrieved 464 publications (ie with duplicates) and included 13 RCTs, which evaluated nine interventions, in the final analysis. The most effective intervention with a significant and clinically relevant effect was Stretch‐and‐Flow Phonation (SFP) (mean pre‐post difference −28.37, 95% confidence interval [CI], −43.05 to‐13.68). Resonant Voice (RV), the Comprehensive Voice Rehabilitation Program (CVRP) and Vocal Function Exercises (VFE) also demonstrated significant improvements. Conclusions Of the nine voice interventions identified with the present NMA, SFP, RVT, CVRP, and VFE effectively improved VHI‐30 scores from pre‐ to post‐treatment. SFP proved to be the most significant and clinically relevant treatment. Further contributions of high‐quality intervention studies are needed to support evidence‐based practice in vocology.

show abstract