Aims: To examine the psychometric properties of a Norwegian translation of the Voice Handicap Index (VHI) and test its ability to discriminate between patients and controls. Abbreviated versions of VHI were also studied. Method: Following standard translation, 126 healthy subjects and 126 patients with laryngeal disease answered the Norwegian translation of the VHI-30 [hereafter, VHI-30(N)]. Results: The VHI(N) showed a high Cronbach α. Control/patient scores were as follows: Emotional (E): 0.88/0.90; Functional (F): 0.77/0.91; Physical (P): 0.86/0.83, and total: 0.93/0.94. One three-level question where the subjects rated the level of voice disease correlated well with the VHI(N) scores. The 90th (95th) percentile of the control score was 18 (33), whereas the mean ± SEM patient score was 52.3 ± 2.04 of a maximum of 120 points. Differences between patient and control groups were significant for all questions on the VHI(N). Receiver operating characteristic analyses demonstrate that the F, P, E and total VHI scores discriminated very well between patients and controls. This was also the case when the abbreviated scales were analyzed as published by Nawka et al. [Folia Phoniatr Logop 2009;61:37–48] and Rosen et al. [Laryngoscope 2004;114:1549–1556]. Conclusion: This Norwegian version of the VHI questionnaire seems to be psychometrically sound.

1.
Dejonckere PH, et al: A basic protocol for functional assessment of voice pathology, especially for investigating the efficacy of (phonosurgical) treatments and evaluating new assessment techniques. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2001;258:77–82.
2.
World Health Organization: The economics of health and disease. WHO Chron 1971;25:20–24.
3.
Benninger MS, et al: Assessing outcomes for dysphonic patients. J Voice 1998;12:540–550.
4.
Franic DM, Bramlett RE, Bothe AC: Psychometric evaluation of disease specific quality of life instruments in voice disorders. J Voice 2005;19:300–315.
5.
Jacobson BH, et al: The Voice Handicap Index (VHI): development and validation. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 1997;6:66–70.
6.
Hogikyan ND, Sethuraman G: Validation of an instrument to measure voice-related quality of life (V-RQOL). J Voice 1999;13:557–569.
7.
Gliklich RE, Glovsky RM, Montgomery WW: Validation of a voice outcome survey for unilateral vocal cord paralysis. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1999;120:153–158.
8.
Deary IJ, et al: VoiSS: a patient-derived voice symptom scale. J Psychosom Res 2003;54:483–489.
9.
National Center for Biotechnology Information: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed.
10.
Biddle A, Watson L, Hooper C, et al: Criteria for determining disability in speech-language disorders. Evid Rep Technol Assess 2002;52:1–4.
11.
Behlau M, Alves dos Santos L de M, Oliveira G: Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the voice handicap index into Brazilian Portuguese. J Voice 2011;25:354–359.
12.
Helidoni ME, et al: Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the voice handicap index into Greek. J Voice 2010;24:221–227.
13.
Lam PKY, et al: Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Chinese Voice Handicap Index-10. Laryngoscope 2006;116:1192–1198.
14.
Malki K, et al: Validation and cultural modification of Arabic voice handicap index. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2010;267:1743–1751.
15.
Ohlsson AC Dotevall H: Voice handicap index in Swedish. Logoped Phoniatr Vocol 2009;34:60–66.
16.
Schindler A, et al: Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the voice handicap index into Italian. J Voice 2010;24:708–714.
17.
Verdonck-de Leeuw IM, et al: Validation of the voice handicap index by assessing equivalence of European translations. Folia Phoniatr Logop 2008;60:173–178.
18.
Nawka T, et al: Item reduction of the voice handicap index based on the original version and on European translations. Folia Phoniatr Logop 2009;61:37–48.
19.
Rosen C, et al: Development and validation of the Voice Handicap Index-10. Laryngoscope 2004;114:1549–1556.
20.
Hays RD, Fayers PM: Assessing Quality of Life in Clinical Trials: Methods and Practice, ed 2. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2005, vol 13, p 467.
21.
Polit DF, Beck CT: Nursing Research: Principles and Methods. Philadelphia, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2004, vol 17, p 758.
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.