Objectives: To evaluate the reliability and validity of the Italian version of the Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V). Patients and Methods: Eighty dysphonic patients and 120 asymptomatic subjects were enrolled. The voice signal of each participant was recorded, listened to and rated by 3 licensed speech-language pathologists using the GRBAS scale and the Italian version of the CAPE-V. The intra- and interrater reliability of the CAPE-V was assessed as well as the degree of association between the CAPE-V and GRBAS judgments. The CAPE-V values were also compared between the patients with dysphonia and the asymptomatic subjects. Results: The intra- and interrater reliability appeared to be good for all the parameters except for the strain parameter. The attributes ‘consistent' and ‘intermittent' demonstrated optimal intra- and interrater reliability. The difference between pathological and control groups was significant for six perceptual parameters. The highest average correlation between GRBAS and CAPE-V judgments was found between overall severity and grade while the lowest was found between the two strain scales. CAPE-V profiles differed significantly between different pathological groups. Conclusion: The Italian version of CAPE-V appears to be a reliable and valid tool for the perceptual analysis of the voice signal.

1.
Dejonckere PH, Bradley P, Clemente P: A basic protocol for functional assessment of voice pathology, especially for investigating the efficacy of (phonosurgical) treatments and evaluating new assessment techniques. Guideline elaborated by the Committee on Phoniatrics of the European Laryngological Society (ELS). Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2001;258:77-82.
2.
Zraick RI, Kempster GB, Connor NP, Klaben BK, Bursac Z, Glaze LE: Establishing validity of the Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V). Am J Speech Lang Pathol 2011;20:14-22.
3.
Bassich CJ, Ludlow CL: The use of perceptual methods for assessing voice quality. J Speech Hear Disord 1986;51:125-133.
4.
Hirano M: Clinical Examination of the Voice. New York, Springer, 1981.
5.
Wilson D: Voice Problems of Children. Baltimore, Williams & Wilkins, 1987.
6.
Laver J, Wirz S, MacKenzie J, Hiller H: A Perceptual Protocol for the Analysis of Vocal Profiles. Edinburgh, University of Edinburgh, 1981, pp 265-280.
7.
Hammarberg B: Clinical applications of methods for acoustic voice analysis. Int J Rehabil Res 1980;3:548-549.
8.
Moerman M, Martens JP, Crevier-Buchman L, de Haan E, Grand S, Tessier C, Woisard V, Dejonckere P: The INFVo perceptual rating scale for substitution voicing: development and reliability. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2006;263:435-439.
9.
Kempster GB, Gerratt BR, Verdolini Abbott K, Barkmeier-Kraemer J, Hillman RE: Consensus auditory-perceptual evaluation of voice: development of a standardized clinical protocol. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 2009;18:124-132.
10.
De Bodt MS, Wuyts FL, Van de Heyning PH, Croux C: Test-retest study of GRBAS scale: influence of experience and professional background on perceptual rating of voice quality. J Voice 1997;11:74-80.
11.
Bhuta T, Patrick L, Garnett JD: Perceptual evaluation of voice quality and its correlation with acoustic measurements. J Voice 2004;18:299-304.
12.
Wuyts FL, De Bodt MS, Van de Heyning PH: Is the reliability of a visual analog scale higher than an ordinal scale? An experiment with the GRBAS scale for the perceptual evaluation of dysphonia. J Voice 1999;13:508-517.
13.
Yu P, Revis J, Wuyts FL, Zanaret M, Giovanni A: Correlation of instrumental voice evaluation with perceptual voice analysis using a modified visual analog scale. Folia Phoniatr Logop 2002;54:271-281.
14.
Karnell M, Melton S, Childes J, Coleman T, Dailey S, Hoffman H: Reliability of clinical based (GRBAS and CAPE-V) and patient-based (V-RQOL and IPVI) documentation of voice disorders. J Voice 2007;21:576-590.
15.
Kelchner LN, Brehm SB, Weinrich B, Middendorf J, deAlarcon A, Levin L, Elluru R: Perceptual evaluation of severe pediatric voice disorders: rater reliability using consensus auditory perceptual evaluation of voice. J Voice 2010;24:441-449.
16.
Solomon NP, Helou AB, Stojadinovic A: Clinical versus laboratory ratings of voice using the CAPE-V. J Voice 2011;25:e7-e14.
17.
Awan SN, Roy N, Jetté ME, Meltzner GS, Hillman RE: Quantifying dysphonia severity using a spectral/cepstral-based acoustic index: comparisons with auditory-perceptual judgements from the CAPE-V. Clin Linguist Phon 2010;24:742-758.
18.
Helou LB, Solomon NP, Henry LR, Coppit GL, Howard RS, Stojadinovic A: The role of listener experience on Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V) ratings of postthyroidectomy voice. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 2010;19:248-258.
19.
Nemr K, Simoes-Zenari M, Ferro Cordeiro G, Tsuji D, Ogawa AI, Ubrug MT, Moreira Menees MH: GRBAS and CAPE-V scales: high reliability and consensus when applied at different times. J Voice 2012;26:812.e17-e22.
20.
Schindler A, Ginocchio D, Ricci Maccarini A, Spadola Bisetti M, Ruoppolo G, Accordi M: CAPE-V (Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice): Italian version. Acta Phoniatr Lat 2006;28:383-391.
21.
Yamaguchi H, Shrivastav R, Andrews ML, Niimi S: A comparison of voice quality ratings made by Japanese and American listeners using the GRBAS scale. Folia Phoniatr Logop 2003;55:147-157.
22.
Menezes MH, Ubrig-Zancanella MT, Cuhna MG, Cordeiro GF, Nemr K, Tsuji DH: The relationship between tongue trill performance duration and vocal changes in dysphonic women. J Voice 2011;25:e167-e175.
23.
Sewall G, Jiang J, Ford CN: Clinical evaluation of Parkinson's related dysphonia. Laryngoscope 2006;116:1740-1744.
24.
Webb AL, Carding PN, Deary IJ, MacKenzie K, Steen N, Wilson JA: The reliability of three perceptual evaluation scales for dysphonia. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2004;261:429-434.
25.
Dejonckere PH, Obbens C, de Moor GM, Wieneke GH: Perceptual evaluation of dysphonia: reliability and relevance. Folia Phoniatr 1993;45:76-83.
26.
Millet B, Dejonckere PH: What determines the differences in perceptual rating of dysphonia between experienced raters? Folia Phoniatr Logop 1998;50:305-310.
27.
Bele IV: Reliability in perceptual analysis of voice quality. J Voice 2005;19:555-573.
28.
Eadie TL, Baylor CR: The effect of perceptual training on inexperienced listeners' judgments of dysphonic voice. J Voice 2006;20:527-544.
29.
Eadie TL, Kapsner M, Rosenzweig J, Waugh P, Hillel A, Merati A: The role of experience on judgments of dysphonia. J Voice 2010;24:564-573.
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.