No abstract

No abstract

Purpose: This study attempted to develop and to preliminarily validate the Mandarin Chinese version of the Vocal Fatigue Index (VFI) as a standardized self-assessment questionnaire tool for potential clinical applications. Method: The experimental procedure involved (a) cross-cultural adaptation of the VFI into the Mandarin Chinese version (CVFI), (b) evaluation by an expert panel, (c) back translation, (d) pilot testing, and (e) validation of the questionnaire by three participant groups: 50 with voice disorders, 50 occupational voice users (at-risk group), and 50 with normal voice (control group). Internal consistency, test–retest reliability, content validity, and convergent validity of the CVFI were examined, and discriminatory ability (diagnostic accuracy) for distinguishing between the groups was evaluated. Results: Results showed high internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha ≥ .8817 for the total CVFI scores for all groups), high test–retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficients ≥ .9072, p < .001 for the total CVFI scores for all groups), high content validity (total content validity index = 0.9368), and high convergent validity (Pearson r ≥ .8155, p < .001 between the total CVFI scores and Factors 1 and 2 scores). Significant differences between the three groups were found in all scores. Receiver operating characteristic analysis revealed a high diagnostic accuracy for distinguishing between the disorders group and the normal group (area under the curve ≥ 0.927, p < .001 for the total CVFI scores and Factors 1 and 2 scores), with cutoff scores of ≥ 36 (total CVFI score), ≥ 23.5 (Factor 1 score), ≥ 7.5 (Factor 2 score), and ≤ 6.5 (Factor 3 score). Conclusions: These findings suggested that the CVFI could be a reliable and valid self-assessment tool for the clinical evaluation of vocal fatigue in Mandarin Chinese–speaking populations. A full-scale validation study of the CVFI is recommended to verify these results.

ObjectivesThis study developed the Mandarin Chinese version of the Aging Voice Index (AVI), with preliminary validation of the scale for potential clinical applications.Study DesignScale development.MethodsThe experimental procedure involved: (1) cross‐cultural adaptation of the original AVI into the Mandarin Chinese version (CAVI); (2) evaluation by expert panel; (3) back translation; (4) pilot testing; (5) development of the final CAVI; (6) scale validation with 68 older adults of 60–89 years old (29 females and 39 males), 34 with voice disorders and 34 age‐matched with normal voice. Internal consistency reliability, test–retest reliability, content validity, criterion‐related validity, and discriminatory ability (diagnostic accuracy) of the CAVI were evaluated.ResultsThere were high internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.9733), high test–retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.9578, p < 0.01), high content validity (content validity index = 0.9710), high criterion‐related validity (Pearson's r = 0.9439, p < 0.01 between CAVI and Voice Handicap Index‐10; r = 0.8070, p < 0.01 between CAVI and voice‐related quality of life [V‐RQOL]), and significant difference in CAVI scores between the two groups with huge effect size (t(34.69) = −11.59, Cohen's d = 2.81, p < 0.001). Receiver operating characteristic analysis revealed a high diagnostic accuracy of the CAVI, with an area under the curve of 0.9974 (p < 0.001) and a cut‐off score of 12.0 with 100% sensitivity and 97.1% specificity.ConclusionOur findings suggested that the CAVI could be a reliable and valid standardized self‐assessment questionnaire tool for clinical evaluation of the impact of voice problems specifically for Mandarin‐speaking older adults. Further studies should explore a full‐scale validation of the CAVI for being a standard clinical tool, including for older adults in Mainland China.Level of evidence3b (case–control study).