The objective of this study was to estimate the agreement and reliability of voice evaluation by a group of expert listeners using the central portion of a sustained vowel and a fragment of connected speech as voice samples. Ratings were made using Wilson's Buffalo III Voice Screening Profile. Analysis showed that intraindividual listeners' agreement presented variability in the evaluation of both voice samples. In the evaluation of the central portion of the sustained vowel, intraindividual listener agreement was moderate for breathiness, hyponasal resonance, and overall voice rating; in connected speech, agreement was moderate for most voice qualities (breathy, rough, high/low pitch, and hyponasal resonance). Finally, Wilson's Buffalo III Voice Screening Profile presented good reliability values for both voice samples, with overall voice rating achieving higher values (.90) than any other voice-quality variable.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AltmanD. G. (1991) Practical statistics for medical research. London: Chapman & Hall.
2.
BassichC. J.LudlowC. L. (1986) The use of perceptual methods by new clinicians for assessing voice quality. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 51, 125–133.
3.
BickleyC. A.StevensK. N. (1986) Effects of a vocal-tract constriction on the glottal source: experimental and modelling studies. Journal of Phonetics, 14, 373–382.
4.
CohenJ. A. (1960) Coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 37–46.
5.
CronbachL. J. (1970) Essentials of psychological testing. (3rd ed.) New York: Harper & Row.
6.
De BodtM. S.WuytsF. L.Van de HeyningP. H.CrouxC. (1997) Test-retest study of the GRBAS Scale: influence of experience and professional background on perceptual rating of voice quality. Journal of Voice, 11, 74–80.
7.
De KromG. (1994) Consistency and reliability of voice quality ratings for different types of speech fragments. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 37, 985–1000.
8.
EskenaziL.ChildersD. G.HicksD. M. (1990) Acoustic correlates of vocal quality. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 33, 298–306.
9.
FritzellB.HammarbergB.GauffinJ.KarlssonI.SundbergJ. (1986) Breathiness and insufficient vocal fold closure. Journal of Phonetics, 14, 549–553.
10.
GelferM. P. (1988) Perceptual attributes of voice: development and use of rating scales. Journal of Voice, 2, 320–326.
11.
GerrattB. R.KreimanJ.Antonanzas-BarrosoN.BerkeG. S. (1993) Comparing internal and external standards in voice quality judgments. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 36, 14–20.
12.
HammarbergB. (1992) Pathological voice qualities: perceptual, and acoustic characteristics of a set of Swedish “reference” voices. Bulletin Audiophonology8, 39–52.
13.
HammarbergB.FritzellB.GauffinJ.SundbergJ.WedinL. (1980) Perceptual and acoustic correlates of abnormal voice qualities. Acta Otolaryngology, 90, 441–451.
14.
HammarbergB.FritzellB.SchiratzkiH. (1984) Teflon injection in 16 patients with paralytic dysphonia: perceptual and acoustic evaluations. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 49, 72–82.
15.
HammarbergB.GauffinJ. (1995) Perceptual and acoustic characteristics of quality differences in pathological voices as related to physiological aspects. In FujimuraO.HiranoM. (Eds.), Vocal physiology: voice quality control. San Diego, CA: Singular. Pp. 283–303.
16.
HiranoM. (1981) Clinical examination of voice. New York: Springer-Verlag.
17.
HollienH.MichelJ.DohertyE. (1973) A method for analyzing vocal jitter in sustained phonation. Journal of Phonetics, 1, 85–91.
18.
Kay Elemetrics Corp. (1993) Multi-dimensional Voice Program (MDVP), model 4300: operational manual. Pine Brook, NJ: Kay Elemetrics Corp.
19.
KingholzF. (1990) Acoustic representation of speaking voice quality. Journal of Voice, 4, 213–219.
20.
KreimanJ.GerrattB. R.KempsterG. B.ErmanA.BerkeG. S. (1993) Perceptual evaluation of voice quality: review, tutorial, and a framework for future research. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 36, 21–40.
21.
KreimanJ.GerrattB. R.PrecodaK.BerkeG. S. (1992) Individual differences in voice quality perception. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 35, 512–520.
22.
LöfqvistA.McGowanR. S. (1991) Voice source variations in running speech. In GauffinJ.HammarbergB. (Eds.), Vocal fold physiology: acoustic, perceptual and physiological aspects of voice mechanisms. San Diego, CA: Singular. Pp. 113–120.
23.
MartinD.FitchJ.WolfeV. (1995) Pathologic voice type and the acoustic prediction of severity. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 38, 765–771.
24.
MilletB.DejonckereP. H. (1998) What determines the differences in perceptual rating of dysphonia between experienced raters?Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica, 50, 305–310.
25.
MurryT.DohertyE. T. (1980) Selected acoustic characteristics of pathologic and normal speakers. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 23, 361–369.
26.
OmoriK.KojimaH.KakaniR.SlavitD. H.BlaugrundS. M. (1997) Acoustic characteristics of rough voice: subharmonics. Journal of Voice, 11, 40–47.
27.
RammageL. A.PeppardR. C.BlessD. M. (1992) Aerodynamic, laryngoscopic, and perceptual-acoustic characteristics in dysphonic females with posterior glottal chinks: a retrospective study. Journal of Voice, 6, 64–78.
28.
ReichA.LermanJ. (1978) Teflon laryngoplasty: an acoustical and perceptual study. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 43, 496–505.
29.
RevisJ.GiovanniA.WuytsF.TrigliaJ. M. (1999) Comparison of different voice samples for perceptual analysis. Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica, 51, 108–116.
30.
WilsonD. K. (1987) Voice problems of children. (3rd ed.) Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins.
31.
WirzS.BeckJ. M. (1995) Assessment of voice quality: the vocal profiles analysis scheme. In WirzS. (Ed.), Perceptual approach to communication disorders. London: Whurr. Pp. 39–55.
32.
WolfeV.CornellR.PalmerC. (1991) Acoustic correlates of pathologic voice types. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 34, 509–516.
33.
WuytsF. L.De BodtM. S.MolenberghsG.RemacleM.HeylenL.MilletB.Van LierdeK.RaesJ.Van de HeyningP. H. (2000) The Dysphonia Severity Index: an objective measure of vocal quality based on a multiparameter approach. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 43, 796–890.
34.
YiuE.WorrallL.LonglandJ.MitchellC. (2000) Analysing vocal quality of connected speech using Kay's computerized speech lab: a preliminary finding. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 14, 295–305.
35.
ZraickR. I.LissJ. M.DormanM. F.CaseJ. L.LaPointeL. L.BealS. P. (2000) Multidimensional scaling of nasal voice quality. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 43, 989–996.
