The acoustic voice quality index version 02.02 in the Finnish-speaking population

Abstract

Background: The Acoustic Voice Quality Index (AVQI) is a multiparametric tool for objectively measuring the general acoustic characteristics of voice. The AVQI uses both sustained vowel and continuous speech in its analysis, and therefore, validation is required for different languages. In the present study, validation was performed in the Finnish-speaking population. Methods: The study included 200 native Finnishspeaking participants of whom 115 were voice patients attending a phoniatric clinic, and the remaining 85 subjects participated in the study as healthy controls. Voice samples were recorded, and the auditory evaluation was performed by five speech therapists. An ordinal four point interval scale was used to evaluate the degree of voice abnormality (Grade, G). Several statistical analyses were performed to test the validity and the diagnostic accuracy of the AVQI in the Finnish-speaking population. Results: The inter-rater reliability of four of the five raters was high enough to allow the use of Gmean in the validation. There was a statistically significant correlation between the AVQI scores and the evaluation of overall perceptual voice quality (r=0.74). Conclusions: The results confirmed the good discriminatory power of the AVQI in differentiating between normal and abnormal voice qualities. The AVQI 02.02 threshold value for dysphonia was 2.87 in the Finnish-speaking population.

Interne Validität des Acoustic Voice Quality Index Version 03.01 und des Acoustic Breathiness Index

“…The inter-rater reliability was lower for both voice quality char- [8] ausgewertet. In der Vergangenheit haben mehrere Studien einen großen Zusammenhang zwischen AVQI und der perzeptiven Beurteilung von Heiserkeit in verschiedenen Sprachen gezeigt, darunter auch im Deutschen [6,[9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21]. Über die letzten Jahre wurde der AVQI weiterentwickelt.…”

“…Der Schwellenwert zwischen heiseren und nicht-heiseren Stimmen kann zwischen den AVQI-Versionen und den Sprachen abweichen. Weitere Untersuchungen zum AVQI ergaben eine konstante und akzeptable diagnostische Genauigkeit [6,[9][10][11][12][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21], eine konstante und hohe konkurrente Validität [6,[9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21], eine robuste Zuverlässigkeit zwischen den inter-sprachlichen phonetischen Unterschieden [9-16, 19, 20, 21], eine Test-Retest Variabilität des AVQI = 0,54 innerhalb der ersten und zweiten Version des AVQI [23], eine Unabhängigkeit der AVQI-Werte von Alter und Geschlecht [24] und eine hohe Sensitivität gegenüber Stimmveränderungen durch Stimmtherapie [9,14].…”

Diagnostic Accuracy of Dysphonia Classification of DSI and AVQI

“…Sustained vowels, on the other hand, are less sensitive to such phonetic variability but implicate less natural phonation as well. This acoustic index correlates meaningfully with the auditory–perceptual judgment of overall voice quality . The threshold of AVQI, which discriminates between the presence of hoarseness and the absence of hoarseness, mainly differs between the second and third version of AVQI and languages (see Table ).…”

“…The threshold of AVQI, which discriminates between the presence of hoarseness and the absence of hoarseness, mainly differs between the second and third version of AVQI and languages (see Table ). Further investigations about AVQI revealed consistent and acceptable diagnostic precision, consistent and high concurrent validity, robust interlanguage phonetic differences, test–retest variability about 0.54 for the second AVQI version, independence of the influencing factors of age and gender, and high sensitivity to voice changes across voice therapy …”

“…7,[28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39] The threshold of AVQI, which discriminates between the presence of hoarseness and the absence of hoarseness, mainly differs between the second and third version of AVQI and languages (see Table I). Further investigations about AVQI revealed consistent and acceptable diagnostic precision, 7,28-38 consistent and high concurrent validity, 7,28-39 robust interlanguage phonetic differences, [29][30][31][32][33][34][37][38][39] testretest variability about 0.54 for the second AVQI version, 40 independence of the influencing factors of age and gender, 25 and high sensitivity to voice changes across voice therapy. 28,32,41 The comparison and correlation between laryngeal imaging and other clinical methods are important to interpret the results of the techniques and increase their clinical relevance.…”