Auditory-Perceptual Assessments of Cough: Characterizing Rater Reliability and the Effects of a Standardized Training Protocol.

IF 1.1 4区 医学 Q3 AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY
Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica Pub Date : 2024-01-01 Epub Date: 2023-08-04 DOI:10.1159/000533372
James A Curtis, James C Borders, Avery E Dakin, Michelle S Troche
{"title":"Auditory-Perceptual Assessments of Cough: Characterizing Rater Reliability and the Effects of a Standardized Training Protocol.","authors":"James A Curtis, James C Borders, Avery E Dakin, Michelle S Troche","doi":"10.1159/000533372","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Auditory-perceptual assessments of cough are commonly used by speech-language pathologists working with people with swallowing disorders with emerging evidence beginning to demonstrate their validity; however, their reliability among novice clinicians is unknown. Therefore, the primary aim of this study was to characterize the reliability of auditory-perceptual assessments of cough among a group of novice clinicians. As a secondary aim, we assessed the effects of a standardized training protocol on the reliability of auditory-perceptual assessments of cough.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Twelve novice clinicians blindly rated ten auditory-perceptual cough descriptors for 120 cough audio clips. Standardized training was then completed by the group of clinicians. The same cough audio clips were then re-randomized and blindly rated. Reliability was analyzed pre- and post-training within each clinician (intra-rater), between each unique pair of raters (dyad-level inter-rater), and for the entire group of raters (group-level inter-rater) using intraclass correlation coefficients and Cohen's Kappa.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Pre-training reliability was greatest for measures of strength, effectiveness, and normality and lowest when judging the type of expiratory maneuver (cough, throat clear, huff, other). The measures that improved the most with training were ratings of perceived crispness, amount of voicing, and type of expiratory maneuver. Intra-rater reliability coefficients ranged from 0.580 to 0.903 pre-training and 0.756-0.904 post-training. Dyad-level inter-rater reliability coefficients ranged from 0.295 to 0.745 pre-training and 0.450-0.804 post-training. Group-level inter-rater reliability coefficients ranged from 0.454 to 0.919 pre-training and 0.558-0.948 post-training.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Reliability of auditory-perceptual assessments varied across perceptual cough descriptors, but all appeared within the range of what has been historically reported for auditory-perceptual assessments of voice and visual-perceptual assessments of swallowing and cough airflow. Reliability improved for most cough descriptors following 30-60 min of standardized training. Future research is needed to examine the validity of auditory-perceptual assessments of cough by assessing the relationship between perceptual cough descriptors and instrumental measures of cough effectiveness to better understand the role of perceptual assessments in clinical practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":12114,"journal":{"name":"Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica","volume":" ","pages":"77-90"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000533372","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/8/4 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Auditory-perceptual assessments of cough are commonly used by speech-language pathologists working with people with swallowing disorders with emerging evidence beginning to demonstrate their validity; however, their reliability among novice clinicians is unknown. Therefore, the primary aim of this study was to characterize the reliability of auditory-perceptual assessments of cough among a group of novice clinicians. As a secondary aim, we assessed the effects of a standardized training protocol on the reliability of auditory-perceptual assessments of cough.

Methods: Twelve novice clinicians blindly rated ten auditory-perceptual cough descriptors for 120 cough audio clips. Standardized training was then completed by the group of clinicians. The same cough audio clips were then re-randomized and blindly rated. Reliability was analyzed pre- and post-training within each clinician (intra-rater), between each unique pair of raters (dyad-level inter-rater), and for the entire group of raters (group-level inter-rater) using intraclass correlation coefficients and Cohen's Kappa.

Results: Pre-training reliability was greatest for measures of strength, effectiveness, and normality and lowest when judging the type of expiratory maneuver (cough, throat clear, huff, other). The measures that improved the most with training were ratings of perceived crispness, amount of voicing, and type of expiratory maneuver. Intra-rater reliability coefficients ranged from 0.580 to 0.903 pre-training and 0.756-0.904 post-training. Dyad-level inter-rater reliability coefficients ranged from 0.295 to 0.745 pre-training and 0.450-0.804 post-training. Group-level inter-rater reliability coefficients ranged from 0.454 to 0.919 pre-training and 0.558-0.948 post-training.

Conclusion: Reliability of auditory-perceptual assessments varied across perceptual cough descriptors, but all appeared within the range of what has been historically reported for auditory-perceptual assessments of voice and visual-perceptual assessments of swallowing and cough airflow. Reliability improved for most cough descriptors following 30-60 min of standardized training. Future research is needed to examine the validity of auditory-perceptual assessments of cough by assessing the relationship between perceptual cough descriptors and instrumental measures of cough effectiveness to better understand the role of perceptual assessments in clinical practice.

咳嗽的听觉-知觉评估:描述评分者的可靠性和标准化培训方案的效果。
简介:言语病理学家在治疗吞咽障碍患者时通常会使用咳嗽的听觉感知评估,有新的证据开始证明其有效性;然而,新手临床医生使用咳嗽听觉感知评估的可靠性尚不清楚。因此,本研究的主要目的是描述一组新手临床医生对咳嗽进行听觉-知觉评估的可靠性。其次,我们还评估了标准化培训方案对咳嗽听觉感知评估可靠性的影响:方法:12 名临床新手对 120 个咳嗽音频片段的 10 个听觉-知觉咳嗽描述符进行盲评。然后由这组临床医生完成标准化培训。然后对相同的咳嗽音频片段进行重新随机化和盲评。使用类内相关系数和 Cohen's Kappa 分析了培训前后每位临床医生内部(评分者内部)、每对评分者之间(双人级别评分者之间)以及整组评分者之间(小组级别评分者之间)的可靠性:训练前对力度、有效性和正常性的测量可靠性最高,而对呼气动作类型(咳嗽、清嗓子、呼气、其他)的判断可靠性最低。训练后改进最大的是对清脆感、发声量和呼气动作类型的评分。训练前的评分者内部信度系数为 0.580 至 0.903,训练后为 0.756 至 0.904。两人水平的评分者之间的可靠性系数在培训前为 0.295 至 0.745 之间,培训后为 0.450 至 0.804 之间。小组水平的评分者间可靠性系数在培训前为 0.454 至 0.919,培训后为 0.558 至 0.948:在不同的咳嗽感知描述中,听觉感知评估的信度各不相同,但都在听觉感知声音评估和视觉感知吞咽及咳嗽气流评估的历史报告范围之内。经过 30-60 分钟的标准化训练后,大多数咳嗽描述指标的可靠性都有所提高。未来的研究需要通过评估咳嗽感知描述符与咳嗽效果工具测量之间的关系来检查咳嗽听觉感知评估的有效性,从而更好地了解感知评估在临床实践中的作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica
Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY-OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
10.00%
发文量
28
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Published since 1947, ''Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica'' provides a forum for international research on the anatomy, physiology, and pathology of structures of the speech, language, and hearing mechanisms. Original papers published in this journal report new findings on basic function, assessment, management, and test development in communication sciences and disorders, as well as experiments designed to test specific theories of speech, language, and hearing function. Review papers of high quality are also welcomed.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信