Revista CEFAC
https://revistacefac.org.br/article/doi/10.1590/1982-0216/20252742024
Revista CEFAC
Original Articles

Auditory-perceptual evaluation of the overall severity of vocal deviation by comparing the visual analog and numerical scales

Análise perceptivo-auditiva do grau geral de desvio vocal pela escala analógica visual correspondente à escala numérica

Priscila Campos Martins dos Santos; Ana Cristina Côrtes Gama

http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1982-0216/20252742024 Revista CEFAC, vol.27, n4, e2024, 2025
PDF English
PDF Português
SciELO
Downloads: 0
Views: 18

Abstract

Purpose: to analyze the cutoff points, sensitivity, and specificity of the correspondence between the visual analog and numerical scales in assessing the overall severity of vocal deviation with linked speech tasks.

Methods: 105 voices were selected for the linked speech task. Six speech-language-hearing pathologists evaluated the samples regarding the overall severity of deviation, using the visual analog and numerical scales, with a 2-day interval between them. The study defined cutoff values based on sensitivity and specificity, used the intraclass correlation coefficient, kappa coefficient, Spearman’s coefficient, analysis of variance, and analysis of sensitivity and specificity, and set the significance level at 5%.

Results: the cutoff values ​​were defined as absent deviation - up to 27 mm, mild - from 27.1 to 50.5 mm, moderate - from 50.6 to 68.5 mm, and intense deviation - 68.6 to 100 mm. The following values ​​were found regarding performance, sensitivity, and specificity, respectively: absent deviation - 0.74, 0.94, and 0.86; mild - 0.57, 0.92, and 0.85; moderate - 0.68, 0.93, and 0.89; intense - 0.95, 0.95, and 0.95.

Conclusion: the numerical scale adequately identified the cutoff points of the overall severity of vocal deviation on the visual analog scale, during the linked speech task.

Keywords

Voice; Voice Quality; Dysphonia; Auditory Perception; Voice Training

Resumo

Objetivo: analisar os pontos de corte, sensibilidade e especificidade da correspondência entre as escalas visual analógica e numérica na avaliação do grau geral de desvio vocal para tarefa de fala encadeada.

Métodos: selecionou-se 105 vozes na tarefa fala encadeada. Seis fonoaudiólogos avaliaram as amostras quanto ao grau geral de desvio, pelas escalas visual analógica e numérica, com intervalo de dois dias entre elas. Definiram-se os valores de corte a partir da sensibilidade e especificidade. Utilizaram-se os Coeficientes de Concordância Intraclasse e Kappa, coeficiente Spearman, análise de variância e análise da sensibilidade e especificidade. Considerou-se nível de significância de 5%.

Resultados: definiu-se os seguintes valores de corte: desvio ausente - até 27 mm, leve - de 27.1 a 50.5 mm, moderado - de 50.6 a 68.5 mm, e intenso - 68.6 a 100 mm. Quanto às medidas de desempenho sensibilidade e especificidade, encontraram-se, respectivamente, os seguintes valores: desvio ausente - 0,74, 0,94 e 0,86; leve - 0,57, 0,92 e 0,85; moderado - 0,68, 0,93 e 0,89; intenso - 0,95, 0,95 e 0,95.

Conclusão: a escala numérica mostrou-se adequada para discriminar os pontos de corte do grau geral de desvio vocal na escala visual analógica, durante a tarefa de fala encadeada.

Palavras-chave

Voz; Qualidade da Voz; Disfonia; Percepção Auditiva; Treinamento da Voz

References

1. Yamasaki R, Gama ACC. Desafios e referências na avaliação perceptivo-auditiva da voz. In: Thieme Revinter, Lopes L, Moreti F, Ribeiro LL, Pereira EC, organizadores. Fundamentos e atualidades em voz Clínica. Rio de Janeiro; 2019. p. 9-30.

2. Oliveira SB, Gama ACC, Chaves CR. Interference of background experience on agreement of perceptivo-auditory analysis of neutral and dysphonic voices. Distúrb. Comum. 2016;28(3):415-21. Disponível em: https://revistas.pucsp.br/index.php/dic/article/view/27706

3. Chan KMK, Yiu EML. A comparison of two perceptual voice evaluation training programs for naive listeners. J Voice. 2006;20(2):229-41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2005.03.007 PMID: 16139475.

4. Behlau M, Rocha B, Englert M, Madazio G. Validation of the Brazilian Portuguese CAPE-V Instrument - Br CAPE-V for auditory-perceptual analysis. J Voice. 2022;36(4):586-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2020.07.007 PMID: 32811691.

5. Hirano M. Clinical examination of voice. Springer-Verlag. New York. 1981.

6. Simberg S, Laine A, Sala E, Rönnemaa A-M. Prevalence of voice disorders among future teachers. J Voice. 2000;14(2):231-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0892-1997(00)80030-2 PMID: 10875574.

7. Yamasaki R, Leão SHS, Madazio G, Padovani M, Azevedo R. Análise perceptivo-auditiva de vozes normais e alteradas: escala analógico visual. XV Congresso Brasileiro de Fonoaudiologia e VII Congresso Internacional de Fonoaudiologia; 2007 out 16-20; Gramado, Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil: Sociedade Brasileira de Fonoaudiologia. 2007.

8. Yamasaki R, Madazio G, Leão SHS, Padovani M, Azevedo R, Behlau M. Auditory-perceptual evaluation of normal and dysphonic voices using the Voice Deviation Scale. J Voice. 2017;31(1):67-71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2016.01.004 PMID: 26873420.

9. Vieira MMRM, Yamasaki R, Brasolotto AG, Behlau M. Intensidade do desvio vocal na escala analógicovisual para adultos idosos. 21º Congresso Brasileiro e 2º Ibero-Americano de Fonoaudiologia; 22-25 set 2013; Porto de Galinhas, Recife, Brasil. Anais. São Paulo: Sociedade Brasileira de Fonoaudiologia; 2013. p. 542-6.

10. Contreras-Ruston F, Guzman M, Castillo-Allendes A, Cantor-Cutiva L, Behlau M. Auditory-perceptual assessment of healthy and disordered voices using the Voice Deviation Scale. J Voice. 2021;28(3):654-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2021.10.017 PMID: 34903393.

11. Martins PC, Couto TE, Gama ACC. Auditory-perceptual evaluation of the degree of vocal deviation: Correlation between the Visual Analogue Scale and Numerical Scale. CoDAS. 2015;27(3):279-84. https://doi.org/10.1590/2317-1782/20152014167 PMID: 26222946.

12. Baravieira PB, Brasolotto AG, Montagnoli NA, Silvério KCA, Yamasaki R, Behlau M. Auditory-perceptual evaluation of rough and breathy voices: Correspondence between analogical visual and numerical scale. CoDAS. 2016;28(2):163-7. https://doi.org/10.1590/2317-1782/20162015098 PMID: 27191880.

13. Kempester GB, Gerrat BR, Abbott KV, Barkmeier-Kraemer J, Hillman RE. Consensus auditory-perceptual evaluation of voice: Development of a standardized clinical protocol. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2009;18(2):124-32. https://doi.org/10.1044/1058-0360(2008/08-0017 PMID: 18930908.

14. Brinca L, Batista AP, Tavares Al, Pinto PN, Araújo L. The effect of anchors and training on the reliability of voice quality ratings for different types of speech stimuli. J Voice. 2015;32(6):705-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2015.01.007 PMID: 25795348.

15. Lu FL, Matteson S. Speech tasks and interrater reliability in perceptual voice evaluation. J Voice. 2014;28(6):725-32. https://doi.org/1010.1016/j.jvoice.2014.01.018 PMID: 24841668.

16. Barsties B, De Bodt M. Assessment of voice quality: Current state-of-the-art. Auris Nasus Larynx. 2015;42(3):183-8. https://doi.org/1010.1016/j.anl.2014.11.001 PMID: 25440411.

17. Maryn Y, Roy N. Sustained vowels and continuous speech in the auditory-perceptual evaluation of dyspohonia severity. J Soc Bras Fonoaudiol. 2012;24(2):107-12. https://doi.org/10.1590/s2179-64912012000200003 PMID: 22832675.

18. Fleiss J. Statistical methods for rates and proportions. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1981.

19. Chaves CR, Campbell M, Gama ACC. The influence of native language on auditory-perceptual evaluation of vocal samples completed by Brazilian and Canadian SLPs. J Voice. 2017;31(2):258.e1-258.e5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2016.05.021 PMID: 27427162.

20. Miot HÁ. Análise de correlação em estudos clínicos e experimentais. J Vasc Bras. 2018;17(4)275-9. https://doi.org/10.1590/1677-5449.174118
 

Submitted date:
02/27/2024

Accepted date:
02/27/2025

6863f296a953954ac434e363 cefac Articles
1982-0216 (Electronic) 1516-1846 (Printed)
Revista CEFAC ©2025 All rights reserved.

Revista CEFAC

Share this page
Page Sections