4.5 Article

DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF FIRST-EVER SPEECH-SPECIFIC PERCEPTUAL SPEECH EVALUATION TOOL FOR PATIENTS WITH HEAD AND NECK CANCER: THE LONDON SPEECH EVALUATION (LSE) SCALE

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/hed.21683

关键词

speech evaluation; head and neck cancer; London Speech Evaluation (LSE) scale; validation; rehabilitation; oral cancer; oropharyngeal cancer; quality of life

资金

  1. Head and Neck Cancer Research Trust/The Oracle Cancer Trust
  2. Institute of Cancer Research
  3. Cancer Research UK Section of Radiotherapy [C46/A10588]
  4. Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust/NHS Executive
  5. Cancer Research UK [13407] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. The aim of this study was to develop and validate the first ever speech-specific perceptual speech-evaluation tool for patients with head and neck cancer. Methods. Five speech parameters (intelligibility, articulation, speech rate, nasality, and asthenia) and overall grade were included and evaluated. Speech samples of 117 subjects were recorded on electroglottograph equipment using a standard protocol and were independently judged and rated by 3 experienced speech and language therapists and re-rated 12 weeks apart. Results. Among patients the Cronbach's alpha (a) coefficients for internal consistency for connected speech were 0.89, whereas for single words the a coefficients ranged between 0.80 and 0.84. The Spearman's correlation coefficients for intra-rater reliability for connected speech and words varied between 0.30 and 0.90 and 0.49 and 0.76, respectively, whereas for inter-rater reliability the coefficients ranged between 0.53 and 0.99 and 0.56 and 0.99, respectively. For construct validity, the Spearman's correlation coefficient ranged between 0.41 and 0.55. Conclusions. The London Speech Evaluation (LSE) scale demonstrated a high reliability and validity in our cohort of patients with head and neck cancer. surgery. (C) 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Head Neck 34: 94-103, 2012

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据