4.5 Article

From dysphonia to dysphoria: Mokken scaling shows a strong, reliable hierarchy of voice symptoms in the Voice Symptom Scale questionnaire

Journal

JOURNAL OF PSYCHOSOMATIC RESEARCH
Volume 68, Issue 1, Pages 67-71

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2009.06.008

Keywords

Dysphonia; Dysphoria; Mokken scaling; Voice Symptom Scale

Categories

Funding

  1. BBSRC
  2. EPSRC
  3. ESRC
  4. MRC
  5. Medical Research Council [G0700704B, G0700704] Funding Source: researchfish
  6. MRC [G0700704] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Symptoms of hoarseness (dysphonia) are common and often associated with psychological distress. The Voice Symptom Scale (VoiSS) is a 30-item self-completed questionnaire concerning voice and throat symptoms. Psychometric and clinical studies on the VoiSS show that it has good reliability and validity, and a clear factorial structure. The present article presents a further advance in voice measurement from the patient's point of view. To date, there has been no examination of whether voice-related symptoms form a hierarchy; that is, whether people who suffer voice problems progress through a reliable set of problems from mild to severe. To address this question, the technique of Mokken scaling was applied to the VoiSS in 480 patients with dysphonia. A strong and reliable Mokken scale-a symptom hierarchy-was found, which included 17 of the 30 items. This new information on dysphonia shows that voice symptoms progress from voice-oriented difficulties, through practical problems, to disturbances of social relationships and mood (dysphoria). The results add infirmation about the structured phenomenology of voice problems, further establish the relationship between voice impairment and psychosocial impairment, and suggest practical applications in the assessment of dysphonic voices. (C) 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available