Diagnostic Validity of Voice Handicap Index-10 (VHI-10) Compared With Perceptive-Auditory and Acoustic Speech Pathology Evaluations of the Voice

Summary Background The voice handicap index (VHI) questionnaire and its reduced version (VHI-10) have the aim of measuring voice problems from the subject's self-perception. No studies on the predictive value of VHI-10 have been conducted. Objective To determine diagnostic validity indicators f...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of voice 2010-11, Vol.24 (6), p.715-718
Main Authors: da Costa de Ceballos, Albanita Gomes, Carvalho, Fernando Martins, de Araújo, Tânia Maria, Farias Borges dos Reis, Eduardo José
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Analysis
Auditory Perception
Brazil
Cross-Sectional Studies
Disability Evaluation
Faculty
Humans
Likelihood Functions
Measurement
Medical Disorders
Otolaryngology
Phonation
Predictive Value of Tests
Reproducibility of Results
Schools
Self Concept
Sensitivity and Specificity
Severity of Illness Index
Speech Acoustics
Speech-Language Pathology - methods
Surveys and Questionnaires
Teaching
Validity
Voice disorders
Voice Disorders - diagnosis
Voice Disorders - physiopathology
Voice Disorders - psychology
Voice handicap index
Voice Quality
Voice Therapy
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Summary Background The voice handicap index (VHI) questionnaire and its reduced version (VHI-10) have the aim of measuring voice problems from the subject's self-perception. No studies on the predictive value of VHI-10 have been conducted. Objective To determine diagnostic validity indicators for VHI-10. Method Four hundred seventy-six elementary and high school teachers working in municipal public schools in Salvador, Bahia, were evaluated. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, proportion of correct classification, Youden index, and positive and negative likelihood ratios were calculated. Results VHI-10 presented low rates for sensitivity (29%), proportion of correct classification (44%), positive predictive value (42%), and negative predictive value (33%). The validity indicators for VHI-10 were better in comparisons with perceptive-auditory analysis than with acoustic analysis. Conclusion Because of the low validity of VHI-10, its use in population-based studies is not recommended. This suggests that it has limitations as a diagnostic support instrument for clinical evaluations.
ISSN:0892-1997
1873-4588
DOI:10.1016/j.jvoice.2009.03.006