Reliability and Validity of the Italian Version of the Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V)

Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate the reliability and validity of the Italian version of the Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V). Patients and Methods: Eighty dysphonic patients and 120 asymptomatic subjects were enrolled. The voice signal of each participant was recorded, listened to and rated by 3 licensed speech-language pathologists using the GRBAS scale and the Italian version of the CAPE-V. The intra- and interrater reliability of the CAPE-V was assessed as well as the degree of association between the CAPE-V and GRBAS judgments. The CAPE-V values were also compared between the patients with dysphonia and the asymptomatic subjects. Results: The intra- and interrater reliability appeared to be good for all the parameters except for the strain parameter. The attributes ‘consistent' and ‘intermittent' demonstrated optimal intra- and interrater reliability. The difference between pathological and control groups was significant for six perceptual parameters. The highest average correlation between GRBAS and CAPE-V judgments was found between overall severity and grade while the lowest was found between the two strain scales. CAPE-V profiles differed significantly between different pathological groups. Conclusion: The Italian version of CAPE-V appears to be a reliable and valid tool for the perceptual analysis of the voice signal.

Development and Validation of the Japanese Version of the Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice

“…In particular, the inter-rater reliability for overall severity was the highest among the 6 perceptual dimensions in all the previous studies described in Table 6, which is consistent with the current result. On the other hand, the reliability for pitch was lower than that of other parameters in the current study, which is not consistent with previous studies (Table 6) (de Almeida et al, 2019;Ertan-Schlüter et al, 2020;Mozzanica et al, 2013;Zraick et al, 2011;Özcebe et al, 2019). This might be due to insufficient training of the judges for voice assessment.…”

“…In particular, the ICC values for overall severity, roughness, breathiness, strain, and loudness were higher than 0.9. Previous studies in different languages of the CAPE-V showed consistent results (Table 6) (de Almeida et al, 2019;Ertan-Schlüter et al, 2020;Mozzanica et al, 2013;Zraick et al, 2011;Özcebe et al, 2019), demonstrating cross-lingual robustness of the CAPE-V. In particular, the inter-rater reliability for overall severity was the highest among the 6 perceptual dimensions in all the previous studies described in Table 6, which is consistent with the current result.…”

“…As a result of the usefulness of the original CAPE-V, it has been translated into different languages: Brazilian Portuguese (Behlau et al, 2020;Nemr et al, 2016), European Portuguese (de Almeida et al, 2019), Italian (Mozzanica et al, 2013), Spanish (Núñez-Batalla et al, 2015), Turkish (Chen et al, 2018;Ertan-Schlüter et al, 2020;Özcebe et al, 2019), and Mandarin (Chen et al, 2018). The reliability and validity of the adaptations of the CAPE-V were investigated and demonstrated in each language (Behlau et al, 2020;Chen et al, 2018;de Almeida et al, 2019;Ertan-Schlüter et al, 2020;Mozzanica et al, 2013;Nemr et al, 2016;Núñez-Batalla et al, 2015;Özcebe et al, 2019). Thus, the CAPE-V has been utilized around the world.…”

Predictive Value of Auditory Perceptual Assessment of Voice in Diagnosis of Functional Voice Disorders and Minimal Associated Pathological Lesions

“…In addition, because GRBAS does not have a specific protocol for data collection in terms of the variability of speech samples and the possible effects of the task order, it is difficult to compare different raters' results across different studies. [19][20] Although these factors can limit the reliability of listener's judgments of voice quality, additional studies showed that coupling auditory perception with instrumental measures produced higher accuracy in determining the presence/absence and extent of voice disorders than either approach alone. 21 Our data showed some strong interrater reliability for some parameters of vocal impairment such as overall grade of dysphonia severity, strain, they also showed fair reliability for ratings of other parameters as leaky and roughness voice qualities, yet, they showed low reliability for ratings of pitch and loudness.…”

The Effect of the Speech Task Characteristics on Perceptual Judgment of Mild to Moderate Dysphonia: A Methodological Study

“…In the current literature, an important methodological variability exists concerning the completion of the GRBASI grading, since it may be based on sustained vowel [3, 4], connected speech [5], conversation, counting task [6], or reading text [7, 8]. These voice samples can be used in another perceptual tool such as the Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice, which includes different tasks, i.e., vowels, connected speech, and conversation [9]. The sustained vowel has the advantage of being easier to elicit and still being unaffected by the articulation of the subject [10, 11] but this production model is unnatural and not representative of the daily speaking voice [12].…”