Skip to main page content

• HOME
• Current
• Archive
• Contact us
• Help
• Custom Print FAQ

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Custom Print Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal My Folders Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Zraick, R. I. Articles by Glaze, L. E. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Zraick, R. I. Articles by Glaze, L. E. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Establishing Validity of the Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V)

Gail B. Kempster
Rush University, Chicago, IL

Nadine P. Connor
Susan Thibeault
University of Wisconsin—Madison

Bernice K. Klaben
University of Cincinnati Physicians, West Chester, OH

Zoran Bursac
Carol R. Thrush
University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences

Leslie E. Glaze
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis

Contact author: Richard I. Zraick, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Mail Slot 772, 4301 West Markham Street, Little Rock, AR 72205. E-mail: zraickrichardi{at}uams.edu.

Purpose: The Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V) was developed to provide a protocol and form for clinicians to use when assessing the voice quality of adults with voice disorders (Kempster, Gerratt, Verdolini Abbott, Barkmeier-Kramer, & Hillman, 2009). This study examined the reliability and the empirical validity of the CAPE-V when used by experienced voice clinicians judging normal and disordered voices.

Method: The validity of the CAPE-V was examined in 2 ways. First, we compared judgments made by 21 raters of 22 normal and 37 disordered voices using the CAPE-V and the GRBAS (grade, roughness, breathiness, asthenia, strain; see Hirano, 1981) scales. Second, we compared our raters' judgments of overall severity to a priori consensus judgments of severity for the 59 voices.

Results: Intrarater reliability coefficients for the CAPE-V ranged from .82 for breathiness to .35 for strain; interrater reliability ranged from .76 for overall severity to .28 for pitch.

Conclusions: Although both CAPE-V and GRBAS reliability coefficients varied across raters and parameters, this study reports slightly improved rater reliability using the CAPE-V to make perceptual judgments of voice quality in comparison to the GRBAS scale. The results provide evidence for the empirical (concurrent) validity of the CAPE-V.

Key Words: Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice, CAPE-V, voice, voice assessment

CiteULike    Connotea    Delicious    Digg    Facebook    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				S. S. Chandrasekhar, G. W. Randolph, M. D. Seidman, R. M. Rosenfeld, P. Angelos, J. Barkmeier-Kraemer, M. S. Benninger, J. H. Blumin, G. Dennis, J. Hanks, et al. Clinical Practice Guideline: Improving Voice Outcomes after Thyroid Surgery Otolaryngology -- Head and Neck Surgery, June 1, 2013; 148(6_suppl): S1 - S37. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				N. Roy, J. Barkmeier-Kraemer, T. Eadie, M. P. Sivasankar, D. Mehta, D. Paul, and R. Hillman Evidence-Based Clinical Voice Assessment: A Systematic Review Am J Speech Lang Pathol, May 1, 2013; 22(2): 212 - 226. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. L. Schneider Behavioral Management of Unilateral Vocal Fold Paralysis and Paresis Voice and Voice Disorders, November 1, 2012; 22(3): 112 - 120. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]