Voice Handicap Index

Jacobson, Barbara H.; Johnson, Alex; Grywalski, Cynthia; Silbergleit, Allen; Jacobson, Gary P.; Benninger, Michael S.; Newman, Craig W.

doi:10.1037/t31070-000

Cited by 13 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…One commonly used voice-specific QOL measure is the Voice Handicap Index (VHI; Jacobson et al, 1997) and its validated short form, the Voice Handicap Index-10 (VHI-10; Rosen, Lee, Osborne, Zullo, & Murry, 2004). This self-reported tool has been used to measure outcomes in individuals who have undergone total laryngectomy, including TEP speakers (Azevedo, Montoni, Filho, Kowalski, & Carrara-de Angelis, 2012;Evans et al, 2009;Kazi et al, 2007;Oridate et al, 2009).…”

Section: Self-reported Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In particular, listener-rated measures typically used in clinical and research environments (e.g., measures of intelligibility, acceptability) are most often assessed under quiet conditions. In contrast, self-reported outcomes such as voice handicap (e.g., Voice Handicap Index; Jacobson et al, 1997) or communicative participation (e.g., Communicative Participation Item Bank; Baylor et al, 2013) often consider background noise when assessing communication. These self-reported scales include background noise in communication situations because it is regularly encountered in everyday environments.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Effect of Noise on Relationships Between Speech Intelligibility and Self-Reported Communication Measures in Tracheoesophageal Speakers

Eadie

Otero

Bolt

et al. 2016

Am J Speech Lang Pathol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Self-reported Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effect of Noise on Relationships Between Speech Intelligibility and Self-Reported Communication Measures in Tracheoesophageal Speakers

Eadie

Otero

Bolt

et al. 2016

Am J Speech Lang Pathol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Clinicians can obtain information about the impact of voice disorders on the daily function of patients through the use of standardized self-report inventories such as the Voice-Related Quality of Life (Hogikyan & Sethuraman, 1999) and Voice Handicap Index (Jacobson et al, 1997) assessments. Actual estimates of typical voice use, however, are still usually obtained as part of the nonstandardized clinical interview process, and the validity and reliability of such highly subjective estimates is questionable.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Accuracy of Self-Reported Estimates of Daily Voice Use in Adults With Normal and Disordered Voices

Mehta

Cheyne

Wehner

et al. 2016

Am J Speech Lang Pathol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Accurate estimation of daily patterns of vocal behavior is essential to understanding the role of voice use in voice disorders. Given that clinicians currently rely on patient self-report to assess daily vocal behaviors, this study sought to assess the accuracy with which adults with and without voice disorders can estimate their amount of daily voice use in terms of phonation time. Method Eighteen subjects (6 patients, 6 matched members of a control group without voice disorders, 6 low voice users) wore the accelerometer-based Ambulatory Phonation Monitor (APM; model 3200, KayPENTAX, Montvale, NJ) for at least 5 workdays. Subjects were instructed to provide hourly self-reports of time spent talking using a visual analog scale. Spearman correlation coefficients and errors between self-reported and APM-based estimates of phonation time revealed subject- and group-specific characteristics. Results A majority of subjects exhibited a significant bias toward overestimating their phonation times, with an average absolute error of 113%. Correlation coefficients between self-reported and APM-based estimates of phonation time ranged from statistically nonsignificant to .91, reflecting large intersubject variability. Conclusions Subjects in all 3 groups were moderately accurate at estimating their hourly voice use, with a consistent bias toward overestimation. The results support the potential role that ambulatory monitoring could play in improving the clinical assessment of voice disorders.

show abstract

“…Preoperative evaluation was performed on the evening before surgery and comprised a detailed history along with completion of the 30-item Voice Handicap Index (VHI-30), 11 voice assessment using the GRBAS (grade, roughness, breathiness, asthenia, strain) rating scale, and fiberoptic videolaryngoscopy, which was scored by assigning a score of 0 (absent), 1 (present), or 2 (severe) to each of the following findings: edema; erythema; polyp, nodule, or granuloma; and reduced movement (0 for normal movement, 1 for reduced movement, and 2 for absent movement).…”

Section: Preoperative Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%