Direct Magnitude Estimation and Interval Scaling of Stuttering Severity

Abstract

The appropriateness of direct magnitude estimation and interval scaling for assessing stuttering severity was investigated by determining whether the continuum of the stutterers' judged severity was prothetic or metathetic. As operationally defined by Stevens, prothetic continua show a curvilinear relation between magnitude estimates and interval scale values of the same set of stimuli, whereas metathetic continua show a linear relation between these scale values. The stuttering severity of 20 stutterers was scaled by three groups of 15 listeners who used interval scaling, direct magnitude estimation with standard/modulus, and direct magnitude estimation without standard/modulus. The results indicated that the two sets of direct magnitude estimation scale values were related to the interval scale values in the curvilinear fashion that is typical of prothetic continua. These findings suggest that direct magnitude estimation is preferable to interval scaling for measuring stuttering severity.

Scaling Voice Activity Limitation and Participation Restriction in Dysphonic Individuals

“…They concluded that although both scales were of similar sensitivity in detecting changes in treatment, the Likert scale was preferred as the authors presumed it was easier to use than the VA scale. However, while personal preference or usability serves a role in the selection of an appropriate rating scale, decisions should be made in conjunction with systematic evaluation of both validity and reliability in measuring the nature to be scaled [19] .…”

Aplicação do Protocolo de Participação e Atividades Vocais - PPAV em duas diferentes escalas de resposta

“…Seemingly they also did not find any difference regarding the degree of difficulty encountered when answering the questionnaire. On the other hand, as far as the time of answering the questionnaire is concerned, the NS scale provided a faster rating (9,12) . Probably, the continuous line of the VAS, which does not have category or division support, make the individuals insecure during the rating.…”

“…The choice of the type of scale must be based on practical considerations, on the individual preferences and on the feasibility of its use in the clinical routine taking into account the time of administration (3,4,9) . In the present study, both scales produced similar results as it happened to the Chinese study (11) .…”

“…Some individuals, for instance, do not like the number zero and others may have a specific favorite number (9) . Therefore, the relationship with cognitive and sensorial factors must be taken into consideration (5,10) .…”

“…Even though the VAS provides a greater sensorial discrimination and is considered the most indicated for evaluating subjective aspects (11,12) , demands an additional operationalization for obtaining the scores, which may demand more time and limit its use for the clinical routine (4) . The decision about what modality is more appropriate for using in clinical and research settings must be based on systematic evaluation of validity and reliability of the different scale modalities (9,13) . The Voice Activity and Participation Profile -VAPP (14) is a modern instrument that was validated into the Brazilian Portuguese (8) and has 28 items that investigate five aspects: self-perceived severity of voice problem; effect on job; effect on daily communication; effect on social communication; effect on emotion.…”