Severity Cut-Off Ranges for Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation Using Visual Analog Scales.

IF 2.5 4区 医学 Q1 AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY Journal of Voice Pub Date : 2025-01-31 DOI:10.1016/j.jvoice.2025.01.018
Patrick R Walden
{"title":"Severity Cut-Off Ranges for Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation Using Visual Analog Scales.","authors":"Patrick R Walden","doi":"10.1016/j.jvoice.2025.01.018","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This retrospective, observational analytic, cross-sectional research study aimed to establish cut-off scores for categorizing the severity of voice qualities on a 100-unit visual analog scale (VAS). The study investigated the VAS cut-off ranges corresponding to auditory-perceptual ratings of normal, mild, moderate, and severe severities from the GRBAS scale for overall severity, breathiness, roughness, and strain.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The study utilized voice samples and ratings from the Perceptual Voice Qualities Database (PVQD). The database contains 296 audio samples, including sustained vowels and sentences, rated by 19 experienced voice clinicians. The raters used a 100-point VAS and the GRBAS scale to evaluate voice qualities. Receiver operator curves (ROC) were calculated to determine cut-off scores for each severity category, balancing a 90% sensitivity with a 10% allowable false-positive categorization.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Cut-off ranges were established for overall severity, breathiness, and roughness, demonstrating similar values across severities. The ranges were: Overall severity: normal (0-15), mild (16-39), moderate (40-69), severe (70-100). Breathiness: normal (0-14), mild (15-34), moderate (35-68), severe (69-100). Roughness: normal (0-13), mild (14-37), moderate (38-65), severe (66-100). For strain, only the normal range (0-15) could be determined with statistical significance.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study provided clinically relevant cut-off values for severity categories on a VAS, enhancing communication with patients and facilitating the use of both sensitive and specific categorical measures in voice evaluation. The findings contribute to a more standardized and objective assessment of voice quality.</p>","PeriodicalId":49954,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Voice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Voice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2025.01.018","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: This retrospective, observational analytic, cross-sectional research study aimed to establish cut-off scores for categorizing the severity of voice qualities on a 100-unit visual analog scale (VAS). The study investigated the VAS cut-off ranges corresponding to auditory-perceptual ratings of normal, mild, moderate, and severe severities from the GRBAS scale for overall severity, breathiness, roughness, and strain.

Methods: The study utilized voice samples and ratings from the Perceptual Voice Qualities Database (PVQD). The database contains 296 audio samples, including sustained vowels and sentences, rated by 19 experienced voice clinicians. The raters used a 100-point VAS and the GRBAS scale to evaluate voice qualities. Receiver operator curves (ROC) were calculated to determine cut-off scores for each severity category, balancing a 90% sensitivity with a 10% allowable false-positive categorization.

Results: Cut-off ranges were established for overall severity, breathiness, and roughness, demonstrating similar values across severities. The ranges were: Overall severity: normal (0-15), mild (16-39), moderate (40-69), severe (70-100). Breathiness: normal (0-14), mild (15-34), moderate (35-68), severe (69-100). Roughness: normal (0-13), mild (14-37), moderate (38-65), severe (66-100). For strain, only the normal range (0-15) could be determined with statistical significance.

Conclusions: This study provided clinically relevant cut-off values for severity categories on a VAS, enhancing communication with patients and facilitating the use of both sensitive and specific categorical measures in voice evaluation. The findings contribute to a more standardized and objective assessment of voice quality.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
使用视觉类比量表进行听觉感知评估的严重程度临界范围。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Voice
Journal of Voice 医学-耳鼻喉科学
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
13.60%
发文量
395
审稿时长
59 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Voice is widely regarded as the world''s premiere journal for voice medicine and research. This peer-reviewed publication is listed in Index Medicus and is indexed by the Institute for Scientific Information. The journal contains articles written by experts throughout the world on all topics in voice sciences, voice medicine and surgery, and speech-language pathologists'' management of voice-related problems. The journal includes clinical articles, clinical research, and laboratory research. Members of the Foundation receive the journal as a benefit of membership.
期刊最新文献
The Importance for Proposing a Treatment for Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Disease Considering the Weakly Acid Pattern. Vocal Fatigue and Recovery Patterns Among Call Center Operators: A Workday Progression Study. Open-Source Manually Annotated Vocal Tract Database for Automatic Segmentation from 3D MRI Using Deep Learning: Benchmarking 2D and 3D Convolutional and Transformer Networks. Resonance Strategies in the Upper Range of Western Operatic Tenors. Airflow Vibrato Dependence on Pitch, Loudness, Adduction, and Straight Tone: A Single Case Study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1