Introduction: The Voice Handicap Index 10 (VHI-10) has been translated to many languages. There are substantial differences between the translation methods. Translated questionnaires without appropriate linguistic validation may not capture cultural differences or be understood by the participants in the manner intended by the original developers. This also holds true between dialects within a language. There are two versions of the VHI-10 in Spanish, both translated in Spain. Considering the cultural and dialectical differences amongst Spanish speakers, it is hypothesized that these translations may not be applicable globally. The purpose of this study was to determine the linguistic relevance and applicability of the currently available versions of the VHI-10 in Spanish amongst Spanish speakers outside of Spain. Methods: This study used mixed methods qualitative and quantitative procedures consisting of semi-structured interviews and quantitative analysis of data. Sixty-nine participants met the inclusion criteria. Participants with and without a diagnosis of dysphonia were included. Demographic data collected included age, gender, cultural/dialectical background, level of education, and number of years residing in Southern California. Participants were provided the currently available translated versions of the VHI-10 in Spanish (V1 and V2). After reading both questionnaires, a semi-structured interview was conducted by a bilingual SLP. Semi-structured interview responses were coded to determine patterns of words marked as problematic/not understood or non-representative of the Spanish dialect spoken by the participants. Results: The majority of participants marked at least one word in both versions as problematic/not understood or non-representative of the Spanish dialect spoken (60/69, 87.0% for V1 and 63/69, 92.3%, for V2). The two words most frequently marked as problematic/not understood or non-representative of the Spanish dialect spoken were “hándicap” (marked by 51/69 participants, 73.9%) and “minusvalía” (marked by 52/69 participants, 75.4%). Conclusions: Data analysis demonstrates that the majority of participants marked words as not understood/non-representative of their dialect on either V1 or V2. One question not understood or not answered could have an impact on how we interpret this patient-reported outcome measure in clinical practice. Use of currently available Spanish translations of the VHI-10 may yield unreliable results when used amongst Spanish speakers outside Spain due to dialectal and cultural differences. Future work will include validation of a voice patient-reported outcome measure that is culturally and linguistically appropriate for Spanish speakers outside Spain.

1.
Francis
DO
,
Daniero
JJ
,
Hovis
KL
,
Sathe
N
,
Jacobson
B
,
Penson
DF
, et al.
Voice-related patient-reported outcome measures: a systematic review of instrument development and validation
.
J Speech Lang Hear Res
.
2017
Jan
;
60
(
1
):
62
88
.
[PubMed]
1558-9102
2.
Gilbert
MR
,
Gartner-Schmidt
JL
,
Rosen
CA
.
The VHI-10 and VHI Item Reduction Translations-Are we all Speaking the Same Language?
J Voice
.
2017
Mar
;
31
(
2
):
250.e1
7
.
[PubMed]
1873-4588
3.
Rosen
CA
,
Lee
AS
,
Osborne
J
,
Zullo
T
,
Murry
T
.
Development and validation of the voice handicap index-10
.
Laryngoscope
.
2004
Sep
;
114
(
9
):
1549
56
.
[PubMed]
0023-852X
4.
Jacobson
BH
,
Alex
J
,
Cynthia
G
,
Alice
S
,
Gary
J
,
Benninger
MS
, et al.
The voice handicap index (VHI)
.
Am J Speech Lang Pathol
.
1997
Aug
;
6
(
3
):
66
70
. 1058-0360
5.
Cohen
SM
,
Jacobson
BH
,
Garrett
CG
,
Noordzij
JP
,
Stewart
MG
,
Attia
A
, et al.
Creation and validation of the Singing Voice Handicap Index
.
Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol
.
2007
Jun
;
116
(
6
):
402
6
.
[PubMed]
0003-4894
6.
Cohen
SM
,
Statham
M
,
Rosen
CA
,
Zullo
T
.
Development and validation of the singing voice handicap-10
.
Laryngoscope
.
2009
Sep
;
119
(
9
):
1864
9
.
[PubMed]
1531-4995
7.
Zur
KB
,
Cotton
S
,
Kelchner
L
,
Baker
S
,
Weinrich
B
,
Lee
L
.
Pediatric Voice Handicap Index (pVHI): a new tool for evaluating pediatric dysphonia
.
Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol
.
2007
Jan
;
71
(
1
):
77
82
.
[PubMed]
0165-5876
8.
Branski
RC
,
Cukier-Blaj
S
,
Pusic
A
,
Cano
SJ
,
Klassen
A
,
Mener
D
, et al.
Measuring quality of life in dysphonic patients: a systematic review of content development in patient-reported outcomes measures
.
J Voice
.
2010
Mar
;
24
(
2
):
193
8
.
[PubMed]
1873-4588
9.
Godoy López
A
,
Godall Castell
P
,
Gassull Bustamante
C
.
Implementación del VHI-10 en catalán y una nueva propuesta lingüística en castellano
.
Rev Logop Fon Audiol
.
2017
Apr
;
37
(
2
):
56
62
. 0214-4603
10.
Núñez-Batalla
F
,
Corte-Santos
P
,
Señaris-González
B
,
Llorente-Pendás
JL
,
Górriz-Gil
C
,
Suárez-Nieto
C
. Adaptation and validation to the Spanish of the voice handicap index (VHI-30) and its shortened version (VHI-10). Acta Otorrinolaringol Engl Ed.
2007
Jan
1
;58(9):386–92.
11.
Timmons Sund
LK
,
Collum
JA
,
Hapner
ER
.
Responses to VHI-10 from Persons with Dysphonia in Southern California.
Poster presented at: ASHA; Unpublished results.
12.
Yiu
EM
,
Ho
EM
,
Ma
EP
,
Verdolini Abbott
K
,
Branski
R
,
Richardson
K
, et al.
Possible cross-cultural differences in the perception of impact of voice disorders
.
J Voice
.
2011
May
;
25
(
3
):
348
53
.
[PubMed]
1873-4588
13.
Lam
PK
,
Chan
KM
,
Ho
WK
,
Kwong
E
,
Yiu
EM
,
Wei
WI
.
Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Chinese Voice Handicap Index-10
.
Laryngoscope
.
2006
Jul
;
116
(
7
):
1192
8
.
[PubMed]
0023-852X
14.
Young
VN
,
Jeong
K
,
Rothenberger
SD
,
Gillespie
AI
,
Smith
LJ
,
Gartner-Schmidt
JL
, et al.
Minimal clinically important difference of voice handicap index-10 in vocal fold paralysis
.
Laryngoscope
.
2018
Jun
;
128
(
6
):
1419
24
.
[PubMed]
1531-4995
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.