METHODS: Scale validation METHODS: The validation of the tool involved the following steps: (1) translation and adaptation of the SToPS into Italian language; (2) recruitment of participants (60 laryngectomized patients with a voice prosthesis and 12 health professionals-six speech and language therapists (SLTs) and six ear, nose, and throat surgeons-classified into experienced (Exp) or not at assessing voice; (3) recording of patients\' speech samples; (4) perceptual evaluation of recorded speech samples (test and retest) performed by the 12 health professionals; and (5) statistical analysis (quadratic weighted Cohen kappa and weighted kappa of Light coefficients).
RESULTS: When all raters were considered as one group, an agreement ≥0.50 was reached for all parameters. The \"ExpSLTs\" group rated more reliably than the other groups, achieving a \"good\" intrarater agreement for 9/10 parameters. Despite the interrater coefficients were lower than the intrarater ones for all rater groups, \"ExpSLTs\" obtained the best levels of interrater agreement, achieving a level of agreement ≥0.50 for all parameters. Finally, considering intrarater+interrater agreement (\"good + good\" or \"good + moderate\"), the \"ExpSLTs\" group showed the greatest agreement, attaining all parameters that met the criteria for \"good\" or \"moderate\" agreement levels.
CONCLUSIONS: The Italian version of SToPS can be considered a reliable tool. As in the original version, expert SLTs are the better judges for tracheoesophageal voice assessment.
方法:量表验证方法:该工具的验证包括以下步骤:(1)将SToPS翻译和改编为意大利语;(2)招募参与者(60名使用语音假体的喉切除患者和12名健康专业人员-6名言语和语言治疗师(SLT)和6名耳朵,鼻子,和咽喉外科医生-在评估语音时分为有经验(Exp)或没有经验;(3)记录患者的语音样本;(4)由12名卫生专业人员对记录的语音样本进行感知评估(测试和重新测试);(5)统计分析(二次加权Cohenkappa和加权轻量kappa系数)。
结果:当将所有评估者视为一组时,所有参数均达成≥0.50的协议。“ExpSLT”组的评级比其他组更可靠,实现9/10参数的“良好”内部协议。尽管所有评估者组的评估者间系数都低于内部系数,“预期SLT”获得了评估者间协议的最佳水平,所有参数达到≥0.50的一致性水平。最后,考虑内部+评估者之间的协议(“好+好”或“好+中等”),“ExpSLTs”小组表现出了最大的共识,达到符合“良好”或“中等”协议级别标准的所有参数。
结论:SToPS的意大利语版本可以被认为是一种可靠的工具。与原始版本一样,专家SLT是更好的判断气管食管语音评估。