Consensus Auditory Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V): Systematic Review of Methods Used for Adaptation and Validation
Consensus Auditory Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V): revisión sistemática de los métodos utilizados para su adaptación y validación
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Show authors biography
Introduction. CAPE-V is widely used for vocal perceptual evaluation and has been adapted and validated in multiple languages. Through an exhaustive analysis, this study sought to advance in establishing a standard in the method used in its adaptation and validation.
Objective. To review articles published between 2002 and 2022 that have adapted and validated CAPE-V in different languages, to thoroughly evaluate the adaptation, methodology, and statistics used.
Methods. A systematic review was conducted using Scopus, Google Scholar and PubMed to identify articles that adapted and/or validated CAPE-V between 2002 and 2022. The title and summary were analyzed to pre-select the sample. To evaluate the risk of bias of the included studies, the full text was critically analyzed.
Results. The initial search identified 568 items. When duplicates were removed, 559 were reviewed and 23 were pre-selected. 12 were finally included and analyzed considering adaptation, methodology, and statistical analysis. The results show that the adaptation and validation of CAPE-V to different languages is essential to ensure accurate and reliable measurements in different populations.
Analysis and discussion. There is heterogeneity in how CAPE-V is adapted and validated. However, all studies were successful in producing valid results, underlining the importance of these processes for clinical practice.
Conclusions. Adaptations and validations of CAPE-V were performed heterogeneously due to the absence of a standard protocol. It is necessary to generate guidelines to perform these processes by providing this scale to the clinic, ensuring quality and reliability of results.
Article visits 574 | PDF visits 170
- Patel RR, Awan SN, Barkmeier-Kraemer J, Courey M, Deliyski D, Eadie T, et al. Recommended protocols for instrumental assessment of voice: American Speech-Language-hearing association expert panel to develop a protocol for instrumental assessment of vocal function. Am J Speech Lang Pathol [Internet]. 2018;27(3):887-905. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1044/2018_AJSLP-17-0009
- Kreiman J, Gerratt BR. Perceptual assessment of voice quality: Past, present, and future. Perspect Voice Voice Disord [Internet]. 2010;20(2):62-7. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1044/vvd20.2.62
- Kempster GB, Gerratt BR, Verdolini Abbott K, Barkmeier-Kraemer J, Hillman RE. Consensus auditory-perceptual evaluation of voice: development of a standardized clinical protocol. Am J Speech Lang Pathol [Internet]. 2009;18(2):124-32. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1044/1058-0360(2008/08-0017)
- Kempster G. CAPE-V: Development and future direction. Perspect Voice Voice Disord [Internet]. 2007;17(2):11-3. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1044/vvd17.2.11
- Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. Declaración PRISMA 2020: una guía actualizada para la publicación de revisiones sistemáticas. Rev Esp Cardiol [Internet]. 2021;74(9):790-9. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.recesp.2021.06.016
- Zraick RI, Kempster GB, Connor NP, Thibeault S, Klaben BK, Bursac Z, et al. Establishing validity of the Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of voice (CAPE-V). Am J Speech Lang Pathol [Internet]. 2011;20(1):14-22. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1044/1058-0360(2010/09-0105)
- Mozzanica F, Ginocchio D, Borghi E, Bachmann C, Schindler A. Reliability and validity of the Italian version of the Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V). Folia Phoniatr Logop [Internet]. 2014;65(5):257-65. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000356479
- Núñez-Batalla F, Morato-Galán M, García-López I, Ávila-Menéndez A. Adaptación fonética y validación del método de valoración perceptual de la voz CAPE-V al español. Acta Otorrinolaringol Esp [Internet]. 2015;66(5):249-57. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.otorri.2014.07.007
- Chen Z, Fang R, Zhang Y, Ge P, Zhuang P, Chou A, et al. The Mandarin version of the Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of voice (CAPE-V) and its reliability. J Speech Lang Hear Res [Internet]. 2018;61(10):2451-7. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1044/2018_JSLHR-S-17-0386
- Özcebe E, Aydinli FE, Tiğrak TK, İncebay Ö, Yilmaz T. Reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of voice (CAPE-V). J Voice [Internet]. 2019;33(3):382.e1-382.e10. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2017.11.013
- de Almeida SC, Mendes AP, Kempster GB. The Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of voice (CAPE-V) psychometric characteristics: II European Portuguese version (II EP CAPE-V). J Voice [Internet]. 2019;33(4):582.e5-582.e13. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2018.02.013
- Ertan-Schlüter E, Demirhan E, Ünsal EM, Tadıhan-Özkan E. The Turkish version of the Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of voice (CAPE-V): A reliability and validity study. J Voice [Internet]. 2020;34(6):965.e13-965.e22. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2019.05.014
- Joshi A, Baheti I, Angadi V. Cultural and linguistic adaptation of the Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of voice (CAPE-V) into hindi. J Speech Lang Hear Res [Internet]. 2020;63(12):3974-81. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1044/2020_JSLHR-20-00348
- Gunjawate DR, Ravi R, Bhagavan S. Reliability and validity of the Kannada version of the Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of voice. J Speech Lang Hear Res [Internet]. 2020;63(2):385-92. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1044/2019_JSLHR-19-00020
- Kondo K, Mizuta M, Kawai Y, Sogami T, Fujimura S, Kojima T, et al. Development and validation of the Japanese version of the Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of voice. J Speech Lang Hear Res [Internet]. 2021;64(12):4754-61. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1044/2021_JSLHR-21-00269
- Behlau M, Rocha B, Englert M, Madazio G. Validation of the Brazilian Portuguese CAPE-V instrument-Br CAPE-V for auditory-perceptual analysis. J Voice [Internet]. 2022;36(4):586.e15-586.e20. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2020.07.007
- Mohd Mossadeq N, Mohd Khairuddin KA, Zakaria MN. Cross-cultural adaptation of the consensus auditory-perceptual evaluation of voice (CAPE-V) into Malay: A validity study. J Voice [Internet]. 2022. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2022.05.018
- Jesús LM, Barney A, Santos R, Caetano J, Couto JJ. Universidade de Aveiro’s voice evaluation protocol. In: INTERSPEECH 2009, 10th Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association; 2009 Sep 6-10; Brighton: International Speech Communication Association (ISCA); 2009. p. 971-4. doi: https://doi.org/10.21437/interspeech.2009-289
- Behlau M, Oliveira G. Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V), ASHA 2003. Rev Soc Bras Fonoaudiol. 2003;9. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285981950_Consensus_Auditory-Perceptual_Evaluation_of_Voice_CAPE-V
- Lundy DS, Casiano RR, Sullivan PA, Roy S, Xue JW, Evans J. Incidence of abnormal laryngeal findings in asymptomatic singing students. Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery [Internet]. 1999;121(1):69-77. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0194-5998(99)70128-2
- Cardoso Ribeiro C, Gómez-Conesa A, Hidalgo Montesinos MD. Metodología para la adaptación de instrumentos de evaluación. Fisioter (Madr, Ed, Impresa) [Internet]. 2010;32(6):264-70. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ft.2010.05.001
- Švec JG, Granqvist S. Guidelines for Selecting Microphones for Human Voice Production Research. Am J Speech Lang Pathol [Internet]. 2010;19(4):356-68. doi: https://doi.org/10.1044/1058-0360(2010/09-0091)
- Verdolini K, Rosen CA, Branski RC. Classification manual for voice disorders-I. Mahwah, NJ, Estados Unidos de América: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2005. 296 p. doi: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410617293
- Manterola C, Grande L, Otzen T, García N, Salazar P, Quiroz G. Confiabilidad, precisión o reproducibilidad de las mediciones. Métodos de valoración, utilidad y aplicaciones en la práctica clínica. Rev Chilena Infectol [Internet]. 2018;35(6):680-8. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/s0716-10182018000600680
