Lecture 3

Question 1

Clinical significance criteria

Answer 1

Reliability coefficient of >0.8
Kendall’s coefficient of concordance of at least 0.7
Agreement >0.8

Question 2

Factors affecting the reliability of ratings (MOSCAPE)

Answer 2

• Ratings that are in the MIDDLE of a scale are less reliable than those at the extremes of a scale
• ORDER of presentation: voices were rated as more severe if presented later
• The type and resolution of the SCALE
• The CONTEXT in which the voices are heard - i.e. a severe voice will be rated more severely if heard amongst normal voices
• ANCHORING provides a more reliable rating
• PATHOLOGICAL voices have a lower level of agreement than normal voices (in terms of severity)
• EXPERIENCE of the judge - different internal standards

Question 3

GRBAS

Answer 3

Grade
Roughness
Breathiness
Asthenia (weakness)
Strain

Question 4

How are the GRBAS attributes rated/measured?

Answer 4

On a 4-point Likert scale (ordinal data)

Question 5

Limitations of the GRBAS

Answer 5

It does not provide clear guidelines for how to

(a) administer the assessment
(b) train listeners to make the judgments
(c) evaluate reliability

Question 6

CAPE-V

Answer 6

Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice

Question 7

Advantages of the CAPE-V

Answer 7

Uses a visual analogue scale, thereby permitting parametric analyses of the ratings
Clear administration protocol

Question 8

What are the specific factors that affect the reliability of voice

Answer 8

MOSCAPE

Middle vs. extreme part of the scale
Order in which voices are presented
Scale & resolution
Context (i.e. with other severe voices or with normal voices)
Anchor
Pathological vs normal
Experience of the rater

Question 9

What does the Mayo classification do?

Answer 9

It classifies dysarthria into 5 different types

Question 10

What is the intra-rater agreement like in the Mayo?

Answer 10

• Good overall

- Varied among perceptual dimensions - i.e. hoarseness, harshness and strain were more variable.