Evidência de validade baseada nos processos de resposta de um protocolo de análise espectrográfica da voz
Evidence of response process validity of a spectrographic voice analysis protocol
Allan Carlos França da Silva; Emmanuel Gustavo Rodrigues Diniz; Maxsuel Avelino Alves de Paiva; Itacely Marinho da Silva; Saulo Iordan do Nascimento Silva; Luiz Medeiros Araujo Lima Filho; Leonardo Wanderley Lopes
Resumo
Palavras-chave
Abstract
Purpose: To develop the validity step based on the response processes of the Spectrographic Analysis Protocol (SAP).
Methods: 10 speech therapists and 10 undergraduate students of the Speech Therapy course were recruited, who applied the SAP in 10 spectrograms, performed the evaluation of the PAE items, and participated in a cognitive interview (CI). The SAP was reanalyzed to reformulate or exclude items based on the responses. The chi-square test and the accuracy values were used to analyze the answers to the questionnaires and qualitative analysis of the CI data.
Results: the participants achieved accuracy > 70% in most items of the SAP. Only seven items achieved accuracy ≤ 70%. There was a difference between presence vs. absence of difficulty in identifying items in the spectrogram. Most participants had no problem identifying the SAP items. In the CI, only six items did not correctly identify the intention, verified in the qualitative analysis. In addition, participants suggested excluding five items.
Conclusion: After the validation step based on the response processes, the SAP is reformulated. Seven items were deleted, and two items were reformulated. Thus, the final version of the SAP after this stage was reduced from 25 to 18 items, distributed in the five domains.
Keywords
References
1 Nemr K, Amar A, Abrahão M, Leite GCDA, Köhle J, Santos ADO, et al. Análise comparativa entre avaliação fonoaudiológica perceptivo-auditiva, análise acústica e laringoscopias indiretas para avaliação vocal em população com queixa vocal. Rev Bras Otorrinolaringol. 2005;71(1):13-7.
2 Barsties B, De Bodt M. Assessment of voice quality: current state-of-the-art. Auris Nasus Larynx. 2015;42(3):183-8.
3 Lopes L, Cavalcante D. Intensidade do desvio vocal: integração de dados perceptivo-auditivos e acústicos em pacientes disfônicos. CoDAS. 2014;26:382-8.
4 Eadie TL, Doyle PC. Classification of dysphonic voice: acoustic and auditory-perceptual measures. J Voice. 2005;19(1):1-14.
5 Titze IR. Workshop on Acoustic Voice Analysis: Summary Statement [Internet]. 1995 [citado em 2022 Fev 7]. Disponível em:
6 Brockmann-Bauser M, Drinnan MJ. Routine acoustic voice analysis: time to think again? Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2011;19(3):165-70.
7 Christmann MK, Brancalioni AR, Freitas CRD, Vargas DZ, Keske-Soares M, Mezzomo CL, et al. Uso do programa MDVP em diferentes contextos: revisão de literatura. Rev CEFAC. 2015;17(4):1341-9.
8 Lopes LW, Alves GÂDS, Melo MLD. Content evidence of a spectrographic analysis protocol. Rev CEFAC. 2017;19(4):510-28.
9 Bastilha GR, Pagliarin KC, Moraes DAO, Cielo CA. Spectrographic Vocal Assessment Protocol (SVAP): Reliability and Criterion Validity. J Voice. 2021 Nov 1;35(6):931.e1-14.
10 Yanagihara N. Significance of harmonic changes and noise components in hoarseness. J Speech Hear Res. 1967;10(3):531-41.
11 Lopes LW, Alves GÂDS, Melo MLD. Content evidence of a spectrographic analysis protocol. Rev CEFAC. 2017;19(4):510-28.
12 Pernambuco L, Espelt A, Magalhães H, Lima KC. Recommendations for elaboration, transcultural adaptation and validation process of tests in Speech, Hearing and Language Pathology. CoDAS. 2017 Jun 8;29(3):e20160217. PMid:28614460.
13 Gonçalves MIR, Pontes PADL, Vieira VP, Pontes AADL, Curcio D, Biase NGD. Função de transferência das vogais orais do Português brasileiro: análise acústica comparativa. Rev Bras Otorrinolaringol (Engl Ed). 2009;75:680-4.
14 García JP, Baena IB. Validity evidence based on response processes. Psicothema. 2014;26(1):136-44. PMid:24444741.
15 Plake BS, Wise LL. What Is the Role and Importance of the Revised AERA, APA, NCME Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing? Educ Meas. 2014 Dez 1;33(4):4-12.
16 Boateng GO, Neilands TB, Frongillo EA, Melgar-Quiñonez HR, Young SL. Best Practices for Developing and Validating Scales for Health, Social, and Behavioral Research: A Primer. Front Public Health. 2018 Jun 11;6:149.
17 Beatty PC, Willis GB. Research synthesis: the practice of cognitive interviewing. Public Opin Q. 2007;71(2):287-311.
18 Blair J, Conrad FG. Sample size for cognitive interview pretesting. Public Opin Q. 2011;75(4):636-58.
19 Fehring RJ. The fehring model. In: Classification of Nursing Diagnoses. Philadelhpia: JB Lippincott; 1994. p. 55-62.
20 Castillo-Díaz M, Padilla JL. How cognitive interviewing can provide validity evidence of the response processes to scale items. Soc Indic Res. 2013 Dez;114(3):963-75.
21 Peterson CH, Gischlar KL, Peterson NA. Item construction using reflective, formative, or rasch measurement models: implications for group work. J Spec Group Work. 2017 Jan 2;42(1):17-32.
22 Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S. Applied logistic regression. New York: Willey; 2000..
23 Tourangeau R. Cognitive science and survey methods: a cognitive perspective. In: Tourangeau R, editor. Cognitive aspects of survey design: building a bridge between disciplines. Washington: National Academy Press; 1984. p. 73-100.
24 Ryan K, Gannon-Slater N, Culbertson MJ. Improving survey methods with cognitive interviews in small- and medium-scale evaluations. Am J Eval. 2012;33(3):414-30.
25 Padilla JL, Benítez I. Validity evidence based on response processes. Psicothema. 2014;26(1):136-44. PMid:24444741.
26 Hawkins M, Elsworth GR, Hoban E, Osborne RH. Questionnaire validation practice within a theoretical framework: a systematic descriptive literature review of health literacy assessments. BMJ Open. 2020 Jun 1;10(6):e035974.
Submitted date:
07/04/2023
Accepted date:
11/30/2023
Facebook
Google+
Twitter
LinkedIn
Mendeley
StumbleUpon
CiteULike
Reddit
Email