Content evidence of a spectrographic analysis protocol

Leonardo Wanderley Lopes,Giorvan Ânderson Dos Santos Alves,Matheus Leão De Melo

doi:10.1590/1982-021620171942917

Leonardo Wanderley Lopes, Giorvan Ânderson Dos Santos Alves + Show 1 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-021620171942917

Copy DOI

Journal: Revista CEFAC	Publication Date: Aug 1, 2017
Citations: 16	License type: cc-by

Affiliation: Universidade Federal da Paraíba

Abstract

ABSTRACT Objective: to verify the content evidence of a spectrographic analysis protocol. Methods: a methodological study in which five speech therapists who assessed the clarity and the relevance of the protocol were selected. The Content Validity Index (CVI) was used to investigate the level of agreement among judges regarding overall aspects, items and domains of the protocol. Results: most judges considered the overall aspects of the protocol as comprehensive. As for clarity, 17 items showed an excellent content validity (CVI ≥ 0.78), three showed a good content validity (0.60 ≤ CVI ≤ 0.77) and two items were judged as poor (CVI ≤ 0.59). As for relevance, 19 items obtained an excellent content validity (CVI ≥ 0.78) and three had a good content validity (0.60 ≤ CVI ≤ 0.77). The judges suggested adding items related to vocal signal normality in all domains. After the analysis, 18 items required no reformulation, five items were added, three were reformulated and one was excluded. Conclusion: the proposed protocol was regarded as a comprehensive one. The items presented a good to excellent content validity as for clarity and relevance. After this validation step, the protocol ended up presenting 25 items distributed into five domains.

Highlights

Acoustic analysis is one of the most mentioned and used methods in clinical and research contexts for the evaluation of vocal emission
As for clarity, 17 items showed an excellent content validity (CVI ≥ 0.78), three showed a good content validity (0.60 ≤ Content Validity Index (CVI) ≤ 0.77) and two items were judged as poor (CVI ≤ 0.59)
As for clarity and relevance, CVI-T values were 0.80 and 0.90, respectively (Tables 1 and 2), both considered excellent according to the classification used

Summary

Introduction

Acoustic analysis is one of the most mentioned and used methods in clinical and research contexts for the evaluation of vocal emission. It provides an integrated understanding of the relationship between vocal input and output, algorithms with a high reproducibility, quantification of deviations in signals, and allows a comparison with normative data[1]. The measurements most commonly used in clinical vocal evaluation routines (jitter and shimmer), based on linear models of vocal production, have a limited reliability for the analysis of signals with a high degree of aperiodicity[3], such as type II, III and IV signals[4]. Non-linear analysis is not yet integrated with most marketed softwares among clinicians, and demands a longer signal processing time

Objectives

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion