Perceptual evaluation of substitution voices: Development and evaluation of the (I)INFVo rating scale

European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology

Volumn 263, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 183-187

  Moerman, M B J ^a,d   Martens, J P ^b   Van Der Borgt, M J ^c   Peleman, M ^c   Gillis, M ^c   Dejonckere, P H ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER UTRECHT   (Netherlands)

^b GHENT UNIVERSITY   (Belgium)

^c Arteveldehogeschool   (Belgium)

^d NONE   (Belgium)

Author keywords

GRBAS; INFVo; Perceptual rating; Substitution voicing; Voice quality

Indexed keywords

ANALYTICAL PARAMETERS; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; EVALUATION; HUMAN; NOISE; PERCEPTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RATING SCALE; SCORING SYSTEM; SPEECH ARTICULATION; SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY; VOICE; VOICE CHANGE;

HUMANS; OBSERVER VARIATION; QUESTIONNAIRES; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX; SPEECH PERCEPTION; VOICE DISORDERS; VOICE QUALITY;

EID: 31544446880     PISSN: 09374477     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00405-005-0960-z     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Dejonckere PH, Bradley P, Clemente P, Cornut G, Crevier-Buchman L, Friedrich G, Van De Heyning P, Remacle M, Woisard V (2001) A basic protocol for functional assessment of voice pathology, especially for investigating the efficacy of (phonosurgical) treatments and evaluating new assessments techniques. Guideline elaborated by the Committee on Phoniatrics of the European Laryngological Society (ELS). Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 258:77-82
2. Dejonckere PH, Remacle M, Fresnel-Elbaz E, Woisard V, Crevier Buchman L, Millet B (1996) Differential perceptual evaluation of pathological voice quality: reliability and correlations with acoustic measurements. Rev Laryngol Otol Rhinol 117:219-224
3. Moerman M, Pieters G, Martens JP, Van der Borgt MJ, Dejonckere P (2004) Objective evaluation of quality of substitution voices. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Jan 15 (Epub ahead of print)
4. Singer MI (1983) Tracheoesophageal speech: vocal rehabilitation after total laryngectomy. Laryngoscope 93:1454-1465
5. Robbins J, Fisher HB, Blom E, Singer MI (1984) A comparative acoustic study of normal, esophageal and tracheo-esophageal speech production. J Speech Hear Disord 49:202-210
6. Debruyne F, Delaere P, Wouters J, Uwents P (1994) Acoustic analysis of tracheo-esophageal versus esophageal speech. J Laryngol Otol 108:325-328
7. Pindzola RH, Cain BH, Auburn AL (1988) Acceptability ratings of tracheo-esophageal speech. Laryngoscope 98:394-397
8. Clark J (1985) Alaryngeal speech intelligibility and the older listener. J Speech Hear Disord 50:60-65
9. McColl D, Fucci D, Petrosino L, Martin DE, McCaffrey P (1998) Listener ratings of the intelligibility of tracheo-esophageal speech in noise. J.Commun Disord 31:279-288
10. Eksteen EC, Nesbitt M, Seikaly H (2003) Comparison of voice characteristics following three different methods of treatment for laryngeal cancer. J Otolaryngol 32:250-253
11. Finizia C, Dotevall H, Lundstrom E, Lindstrom J (1999) Acoustic and perceptual evaluation of voice and speech quality: a study of patients with laryngeal cancer treated with laryngectomy vs irradiation. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 125:157-163
12. Finizia C, Lindstrom J, Dotevall H (1998) Intelligibility and perceptual ratings after treatment for laryngeal cancer: laryngectomy versus radiotherapy. Laryngoscope 108:138-143
13. Van As CJ, Koopmans-van Beinum FJ, Hilgers FJ (2003) Perceptual evaluation of tracheo-esophageal speech by naïve and experienced judges through the use of semantic differential scales. J Speech Lang Hear Res 46:947-959
14. Van As CJ (2001) Tracheo-esophageal speech: a multidimensional assessment of voice quality. Doctoral thesis. Budde-Elinkwijk, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands
15. Vlaminck H, Maes B, Jacobs A, Reyntjens S, Evers G (2001) The dialysis diet and fluid non-adherence questionnaire: validity testing of a self-report instrument for clinical practice. Information point: Kendall's tau. J Clin Nurs 10:707-715