Responsiveness of the Voice Handicap Index and its Abbreviated Version, Adapted to Rioplatense Spanish from Argentina (Índice de Desventaja Vocal)

Sensibilidad al cambio del Voice Handicap Index y su versión abreviada, adaptados al español rioplatense de Argentina (Índice de Desventaja Vocal)

Published 2024-07-03

Open | Download
HTML Icon XML Icon
Issue
Press articles
Section
Research Article
How to Cite
1.
Responsiveness of the Voice Handicap Index and its Abbreviated Version, Adapted to Rioplatense Spanish from Argentina (Índice de Desventaja Vocal). Rev. Investig. Innov. Cienc. Salud [Internet]. 2024 Jul. 3 [cited 2024 Nov. 21];:In press. Available from: https://riics.info/index.php/RCMC/article/view/302
DOI

https://doi.org/10.46634/riics.302
Dimensions
PlumX
license
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Juana Román-Zubeldia
Unidad de Rehabilitación; Hospital Ramón Santamarina; Tandil; Argentina.
    https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7812-2372
    Show authors biography

    Aim. To evaluate the responsiveness of the “Índice de Desventaja Vocal” (Argentinian version of the Voice Handicap Index) consisting in 30 items (IDV-30) and its abbreviated version (IDV-10).

    Methodology. The IDV-30 and IDV-10 were administered to subjects with dysphonia of various etiologies, both before (“PRE”) and after (“POST”) receiving voice therapy. Independent samples were used for each instrument (IDV-30 n = 81; IDV-10 n = 92). The responsiveness of each index and each subscale of the IDV-30 was evaluated using the Wilcoxon test and it was determined whether statistically significant differences existed in scores of different diagnostic groups using the Kruskal-Wallis test.

    Results. Participants who completed the IDV-30 required an average of 8.44 therapy sessions while those who completed the IDV-10 required an average of 8.34 sessions. When comparing the “PRE” and “POST”-voice therapy scores of the total IDV-30, as well as each of its subscales and the IDV-10, the difference was statistically significant (p<0.001). There were no statistically significant differences in the score changes obtained by each diagnostic group across any of the indices.

    Conclusions. The responsiveness of the IDV-30 and IDV-10 has been confirmed, as statistically significant improvement in scores was evidenced by participants in the study after receiving voice therapy.

    Article visits 119 | PDF visits

    1. Jacobson BH, Johnson A, Grywalski C, Silbergleit A, Jacobson G, Benninger MS, et al. The Voice Handicap Index (VHI): Development and Validation. Am J Speech-Language Pathol [Internet]. 1997;6(3):66-70. doi: https://doi.org/10.1044/1058-0360.0603.66
    2. Feige K, Strauss A, Strauss G. Voice Handicap Index-18 as an Instrument for Assessing Subjective Voice Impairment Between Voice Pre- and Post-treatment. J Voice [Internet]. 2020;34(5):810.e1-810.e10. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2019.04.005
    3. Rosen CA, Lee AS, Osborne J, Zullo T, Murry T. Development and Validation of the Voice Handicap Index-10. Laryngoscope [Internet]. 2004;114(9):1549-56. doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/00005537-200409000-00009
    4. Román-Zubeldia J, Farias PG. Adaptación y validación del Voice Handicap Index y su versión abreviada al español rioplatense de Argentina. Rev Investig Innov Cienc Salud [Internet]. 2024 Feb 3;6(1):127-47. doi: https://doi.org/10.46634/riics.265
    5. Carvajal A, Centeno C, Watson R, Martínez M, Rubiales AS. [How is an instrument for measuring health to be validated?]. Anales Sis San Navarra [Internet]. 2011;34(1):63-72. doi: https://doi.org/10.4321/S1137-66272011000100007
    6. Ramada-Rodilla JM, Serra-Pujadas C, Delclós-Clanchet GL. Adaptación cultural y validación de cuestionarios de salud: revisión y recomendaciones metodológicas. Salud Publica Mex [Internet]. 2013;55(1):57-66. doi: https://doi.org/10.1590/S0036-36342013000100009
    7. Lira MT, Caballero E. Adaptación transcultural de instrumentos de evaluación en salud: historia y reflexiones del por qué, cómo y cuándo. Rev méd Clín Las Condes [Internet]. 2020;31(1):85-94. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rmclc.2019.08.003
    8. Dimitrov DM. Statistical methods for validation of assessment scale data in counseling and related fields. New Jersey: Wiley; 2014. 259 p.
    9. Mokkink L, Terwee C, de Vet H. Key concepts in clinical epidemiology: Responsiveness, the longitudinal aspect of validity. J Clin Epidemiol [Internet]. 2021;140:159-62. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.06.002
    10. Albornoz CR, Pusic A, Danilla S. Evaluation of Surgical Results From the Patient’S Perspective. Rev méd Clín Las Condes [Internet]. 2016;27(1):107-12. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rmclc.2016.01.013
    11. Carrozzino D, Patierno C, Guidi J, Berrocal Montiel C, Cao J, Charlson ME, et al. Clinimetric Criteria for Patient-Reported Outcome Measures. Psychother Psychosom [Internet]. 2021;90(4):222-32. doi: https://doi.org/10.1159/000516599
    12. Behlau M. Voz. O livro do especialista - Volume 1. 1st ed. Rio de Janeiro: Revinter; 2001. 348 p.
    13. Crisosto-Alarcón J. ¿Cómo construir objetivos operacionales medibles? Una taxonomía de criterios de logro para el monitoreo de la intervención vocal. Rev Investig Innov Cienc Salud [Internet]. 2023 Dec 21;5(2):205-31. doi: https://doi.org/10.46634/riics.230
    14. García de Yébenes Prous MJ, Rodríguez Salvanés F, Carmona Ortells L. Sensibilidad al cambio de las medidas de desenlace. Reumatología Clínica [Internet]. 2008;4(6):240-7. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1699-258X(08)75545-1
    15. Rosen CA, Murry T, Zinn A, Zullo T, Sonbolian M. Voice handicap index change following treatment of voice disorders. J Voice [Internet]. 2000;14(4):619-23. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0892-1997(00)80017-X
    16. Núñez-Batalla F, Corte-Santos P, Señaris-González B, Llorente-Pendás JL, Górriz-Gil C, Suárez-Nieto C. Adaptación y validación del índice de incapacidad vocal (VHI-30) y su versión abreviada (VHI-10) al español. Acta Otorrinolaringol Esp [Internet]. 2007;58(9):386-92. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-6519(07)74954-3
    17. Xu W, Han D, Li H, Hu R, Zhang L. Application of the mandarin chinese version of the voice handicap index. J Voice [Internet]. 2010;24(6):702-7. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2009.05.007
    18. Behlau M, Alves Dos Santos LDM, Oliveira G. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the voice handicap index into Brazilian Portuguese. J Voice [Internet]. 2011;25(3):354-9. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2009.09.007
    19. Taguchi A, Mise K, Nishikubo K, Hyodo M, Shiromoto O. Japanese version of Voice Handicap Index for subjective evaluation of voice disorder. J Voice [Internet]. 2012;26(5):668.e15-668.e19. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2011.11.005
    20. Menon U, Sheejamol VS, Cherian MP. Validation of Malayalam Version of the Voice Handicap Index. International journal of phonosurgery and laryngology [Internet]. 2012;2(1):1-4. doi: https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10023-1025
    21. Bourque JM, Defoy L, Batcho CS, Tremblay P, Gagnon S, Martel-Sauvageau V. Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Validation of the Voice Handicap Index in the Quebec French Population (VHI-QF). J Voice [Internet]. 2020;34(5):811.e1-811.e6. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2019.04.010
    22. Khoramshahi H, Khatoonabadi AR, Khoddami SM, Dabirmoghaddam P, Ansari NN. Responsiveness of Persian Version of Consensus Auditory Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V), Persian Version of Voice Handicap Index (VHI), and Praat in Vocal Mass Lesions with Muscle Tension Dysphonia. J Voice [Internet]. 2018;32(6):770.e21-770.e30. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2017.08.008
    23. Costa T, Oliveira G, Behlau M. Validation of the Voice Handicap Index: 10 (VHI-10) to the Brazilian Portuguese. CoDAS [Internet]. 2013;25(5):482-5. doi: https://doi.org/10.1590/S2317-17822013000500013
    24. Forti S, Amico M, Zambarbieri A, Ciabatta A, Assi C, Pignataro L, et al. Validation of the Italian Voice Handicap Index-10. J Voice [Internet]. 2014;28(2):263.e17-263.e22. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2013.07.013
    25. Khalaf M, Matar N. Translation and transcultural adaptation of the VHI-10 questionnaire: the VHI-10lb. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol [Internet]. 2017;274(8):3139-45. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-017-4585-9
    26. Akhtar S, Dhanani R, Ahmad K. Translation and validation of voice handicap Index-10 in Urdu. A validation study from a tertiary care hospital of Pakistan. J Pak Med Assoc [Internet]. 2018;68(6):904-7. doi: https://doi.org/10.1044/2023_AJSLP-22-00390
    27. Fujiki RB, Thibeault SL. Examining Therapy Duration in Adults With Voice Disorders. Am J Speech-Lang Pathol. 2023;32(4):1665-78. doi: https://doi.org/10.1044/2023_AJSLP-22-00390
    Publish with RIICS

    Scimago

    Most read in the last 30 days

    Sistema OJS 3.4.0.7 - Metabiblioteca |