The Acoustic Voice Quality Index (AVQI) is an objective method to quantify the severity of overall voice quality in concatenated continuous speech and sustained phonation segments. Recently, AVQI was successfully modified to be more representative and ecologically valid because the internal consistency of AVQI was balanced out through equal proportion of the 2 speech types. The present investigation aims to explore its external validation in a large data set.
Methods:
An expert panel of 12 speech-language therapists rated the voice quality of 1058 concatenated voice samples varying from normophonia to severe dysphonia. The Spearman rank-order correlation coefficients (r) were used to measure concurrent validity. The AVQI’s diagnostic accuracy was evaluated with several estimates of its receiver operating characteristics (ROC).
Results:
Finally, 8 of the 12 experts were chosen because of reliability criteria. A strong correlation was identified between AVQI and auditoryperceptual rating (r = 0.815, P = .000). It indicated that 66.4% of the auditory-perceptual rating’s variation was explained by AVQI. Additionally, the ROC results showed again the best diagnostic outcome at a threshold of AVQI = 2.43.
Conclusions:
This study highlights external validation and diagnostic precision of the AVQI version 03.01 as a robust and ecologically valid measurement to objectify voice quality.
BarstiesBDe BodtM. Assessment of voice quality: current state-of-the-art. Auris Nasus Larynx. 2015;42:183-188.
2.
OatesJ. Auditory-perceptual evaluation of disordered voice quality: pros, cons and future directions. Folia Phoniatr Logop. 2009;61:49-56.
3.
BarstiesBMarynY. The influence of voice sample duration in the auditory-perceptual judgment of overall voice quality. unpublished data.
4.
RoyNBarkmeier-KraemerJEadieT. Evidence-based clinical voice assessment: a systematic review. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2013;22:212-226.
5.
MarynYCorthalsPVan CauwenbergePRoyNDe BodtM. Toward improved ecological validity in the acoustic measurement of overall voice quality: combining continuous speech and sustained vowels. J Voice. 2010;24:540-555.
6.
MarynYRoyN. Sustained vowels and continuous speech in the auditory-perceptual evaluation of dysphonia severity. J Soc Bras Fonoaudiol. 2012;24:107-112.
7.
MarynYDe BodtMRoyN. The Acoustic Voice Quality Index: toward improved treatment outcomes assessment in voice disorders. J Commun Disord. 2010;43:161-174.
8.
BarstiesBMarynY. Der Acoustic Voice Quality Index in Deutsch: Ein Messverfahren zur allgemeinen Stimmqualität [The Acoustic Voice Quality Index. Toward expanded measurement of dysphonia severity in German subjects]. HNO. 2012;60:715-720.
9.
ReynoldsVBucklandABaileyJ. Objective assessment of pediatric voice disorders with the acoustic voice quality index. J Voice. 2012;26:672.e1-7.
10.
MarynYDe BodtMBarstiesBRoyN. The value of the Acoustic Voice Quality Index as a measure of dysphonia severity in subjects speaking different languages. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2014;271:1609-1619.
11.
KankareEBarstiesBMarynY. A preliminary study of the Acoustic Voice Quality Index in Finnish speaking population. Paper presented at: 11th Pan European Voice Conference; September 2015; Florence, Italy.
12.
MarynYKimHTKimJ. Auditory-perceptual and acoustic methods in measuring dysphonia severity of Korean speech [published online August24, 2015]. J Voice.
BoersmaPWeeninkD. [computer program]. Praat: Doing Phonetics by Computer (Version 5.3.57). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Institute of Phonetic Sciences (October2013).
15.
MarynYWeeninkD. Objective dysphonia measures in the program Praat: smoothed cepstral peak prominence and acoustic voice quality index. J Voice. 2015;29:35-43.
16.
BarstiesBMarynY. The improvement of internal consistency of the Acoustic Voice Quality Index. Am J Otolaryngol. 2015;36:647-656.
17.
Federal Agency for Medicines and Health Products, and Belgian Advisory Committee on Bioethics. Guide for Non-interventional Studies. Brussels: Author; 2007.
18.
Van de WeijerJCSlisIH. Nasaliteitsmeting met de nasometer. Tijdschrift voor Logopedie en Foniatrie. 1991;63:97-101.
19.
Van LierdeK. Nasalance and Nasality in Clinical Practice [dissertation]. University of Ghent, Ghent, Belgium; 2001.
20.
RoarkRM. Frequency and voice: perspectives in the time domain. J Voice. 2006;20:325-354.
21.
DeliyskiDDShawHSEvansMK. Adverse effects of environmental noise on acoustic voice quality measurements. J Voice. 2005;19:15-28.
22.
DeliyskiDDShawHSEvansMKVesselinowR. Regression tree approach to studying factors influencing acoustic voice analysis. Folia Phoniatr Logop. 2006;58:274-288.
23.
HiranoM. Psycho-acoustic evaluation of voice. In: ArnoldGEWinckelFWykeBD, ed. Disorders of Human Communication 5. Clinical Examination of Voice. Vienna, Austria: Springer-Verlag; 1981:81-84.
24.
WuytsFLDe BodtMSVan de HeyningPH. Is the reliability of a visual analog scale higher than an ordinal scale? An experiment with the GRBAS scale for the perceptual evaluation of dysphonia. J Voice. 1999;13:508-517.
25.
KreimanJGerrattBRKempsterGBErmanABerkeGS. Perceptual evaluation of voice quality: review, tutorial, and a framework for future research. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 1993;36:21-40.
26.
ChanKMYiuEM. The effect of anchors and training on the reliability of perceptual voice evaluation. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2002;45:111-126.
27.
AndersLCHollienHHurmePSonninenAWendlerJ. Perception of hoarseness by several classes of listeners. Folia Phoniatr Logop. 1988;40:91-100.
28.
DejonckerePH. Principal components in voice pathology. Voice. 1995;4:96-105.
29.
ShrivastavR. Evaluating voice quality. In: MaEPMYiuEML, ed. Handbook of Voice Assessments. San Diego, CA: Singular Publishing Group; 2011:305-318.
30.
EverittBS. The Cambridge Dictionary of Statistics. 2nd ed. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2002.
31.
LandisJRKochGG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33:159-174.
32.
Van BelleS. Agreement Between Raters and Groups of Raters [dissertation]. University of Liège, Liège, Belgium; 2009.
33.
FleissJL. Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychol Bull. 1971;76:378-382.
34.
FreyLRBotanCHFriedmanPGKrepsGL. Investigating Communication: An Introduction to Research Methods. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1991.
35.
PortneyLGWatkinsMP. Foundations of Clinical Research, Applications to Practice. 2nd ed. Englewood Cliff, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 2000.
36.
DollaghanCA. The Handbook for Evidence-based Practice in Communication Disorders. Baltimore, MD: Brookes; 2007.
37.
BarstiesBBeersMTen CateL. The effect of visual feedback and training in auditory-perceptual judgment of voice quality [published online November2, 2015]. Logoped Phoniatr Vocol.
38.
WuytsFLDe BodtMSMolenberghsG. The dysphonia severity index: an objective measure of vocal quality based on a multiparameter approach. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2000;43:796-809.
39.
JayakumarTSavithriSR. Assessment of voice quality in monozygotic twins: qualitative and quantitative measures. JAIISH. 2009;28:8-13.
40.
HenryLRHelouLBSolomonNP. Functional voice outcomes after thyroidectomy: an assessment of the Dsyphonia Severity Index (DSI) after thyroidectomy. Surgery. 2010;147:861-870.
41.
AborasYEl-BannaMEl-MagrabyRIbrahimA. The relationship between subjective self-rating and objective voice assessment measures. Logoped Phoniatr Vocol. 2010;35:34-38.
42.
SmehákG. Complex voice measurement panel for the assessment of the functional evaluation of the laryngeal surgical interventions [dissertation]. Univeristy of Szeged, Szeged, Hungary; 2010.
43.
Hussein GaberAGLiangFYYangJSWangYJZhengYQ. Correlation among the dysphonia severity index (DSI), the RBH voice perceptual evaluation, and minimum glottal area in female patients with vocal fold nodules. J Voice. 2014;28:20-23.
44.
AwanSNRoyNJettéMEMeltznerGSHillmanRE. Quantifying dysphonia severity using a spectral/cepstral-based acoustic index: Comparisons with auditory-perceptual judgements from the CAPE-V. Clin Linguist Phon. 2010;24:742-758.
45.
AwanSNSolomonNPHelouLBStojadinovicA. Spectral-cepstral estimation of dysphonia severity: external validation. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2013;122:40-48.
46.
PetersonEARoyNAwanSNMerrillRMBanksRTannerK. Toward validation of the cepstral spectral index of dysphonia (CSID) as an objective treatment outcomes measure. J Voice. 2013;27:401-410.
47.
WattsCRAwanSN. An examination of variations in the cepstral spectral index of dysphonia across a single breath group in connected speech. J Voice. 2015;29:26-34.
