We have located links that may give you full text access.
Test-Retest Reliability of the Dual-Microphone Voice Range Profile.
Journal of Voice 2018 January
OBJECTIVES: The voice range profile (VRP) measures vocal intensity and fundamental frequency. Phonosurgical and logopedic treatment outcome studies using the VRP report voice improvements of 3-6 semitones (ST) in ST range and 4-7 decibels (dB) in sound pressure level range after treatment. These small improvements stress the importance of reliable measurements. The aim was to evaluate the test-retest reliability of the dual-microphone computerized VRP on participants with healthy voices.
STUDY DESIGN: This is a prospective test-retest reliability study.
METHODS: Dual-microphone VRPs were repeated twice on healthy participants (n = 37) with an interval of 6-37 days. Voice frequency and intensity (minimum, maximum, and ranges) were assessed in combination with the area of the VRP.
RESULTS: Correlations between VRP parameters were high (r > 0.60). However, in the retest, a statistically significant increase in voice frequency range (1.4 ST [95% confidence interval {CI}: 0.8-2.1 ST], P < 0.001), intensity ranges (2.2 dB [95% CI: 1.0-3.4 dB], P < 0.001), maximum frequency (1.0 ST [95% CI: 0.5-1.6 ST], P < 0.001), maximum intensity (1.4 dB [95% CI: 0.5-2.3 dB], P = 0.002), and area inside the VRP (148 cells [95% CI: 87-210 cells], P < 0.001) was observed.
CONCLUSION: The intra-examiner variation of the dual-microphone VRP is well below the differences seen after surgical or logopedic intervention, even when measuring in non-sound-treated rooms. There is a need for studies regarding inter-examiner reliability with a longer interval between test and retest before the assessment is fully reliable for clinical application.
STUDY DESIGN: This is a prospective test-retest reliability study.
METHODS: Dual-microphone VRPs were repeated twice on healthy participants (n = 37) with an interval of 6-37 days. Voice frequency and intensity (minimum, maximum, and ranges) were assessed in combination with the area of the VRP.
RESULTS: Correlations between VRP parameters were high (r > 0.60). However, in the retest, a statistically significant increase in voice frequency range (1.4 ST [95% confidence interval {CI}: 0.8-2.1 ST], P < 0.001), intensity ranges (2.2 dB [95% CI: 1.0-3.4 dB], P < 0.001), maximum frequency (1.0 ST [95% CI: 0.5-1.6 ST], P < 0.001), maximum intensity (1.4 dB [95% CI: 0.5-2.3 dB], P = 0.002), and area inside the VRP (148 cells [95% CI: 87-210 cells], P < 0.001) was observed.
CONCLUSION: The intra-examiner variation of the dual-microphone VRP is well below the differences seen after surgical or logopedic intervention, even when measuring in non-sound-treated rooms. There is a need for studies regarding inter-examiner reliability with a longer interval between test and retest before the assessment is fully reliable for clinical application.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app