Abstract：
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to validate the Sunderland Tracheoesophageal Perceptual Scale (SToPS) in the Italian language by checking the inter- and intra-rater reliability.
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.
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.
摘要：
目的：本研究旨在通过检查评估者间和评估者内的可靠性来验证意大利语中的桑德兰气管食管感知量表（SToPS）。
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。
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。
