Linguistic Relevance and Applicability of the Spanish VHI-10 in a Population outside Spain.

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: The Voice Handicap Index 10 (VHI-10) has been translated to many languages. There are substantial differences between the translation methods. Translated questionnaires without appropriate linguistic validation may not capture cultural differences or be understood by the participants in the manner intended by the original developers. This also holds true between dialects within a language. There are two versions of the VHI-10 in Spanish, both translated in Spain. Considering the cultural and dialectical differences amongst Spanish speakers, it is hypothesized that these translations may not be applicable globally. The purpose of this study was to determine the linguistic relevance and applicability of the currently available versions of the VHI-10 in Spanish amongst Spanish speakers outside of Spain. METHODS: This study used mixed methods qualitative and quantitative procedures consisting of semi-structured interviews and quantitative analysis of data. Sixty-nine participants met the inclusion criteria. Participants with and without a diagnosis of dysphonia were included. Demographic data collected included age, gender, cultural/dialectical background, level of education, and number of years residing in Southern California. Participants were provided the currently available translated versions of the VHI-10 in Spanish (V1 and V2). After reading both questionnaires, a semi-structured interview was conducted by a bilingual SLP. Semi-structured interview responses were coded to determine patterns of words marked as problematic/not understood or non-representative of the Spanish dialect spoken by the participants. RESULTS: The majority of participants marked at least one word in both versions as problematic/not understood or non-representative of the Spanish dialect spoken (60/69, 87.0% for V1 and 63/69, 92.3%, for V2). The two words most frequently marked as problematic/not understood or non-representative of the Spanish dialect spoken were "hándicap" (marked by 51/69 participants, 73.9%) and "minusvalía" (marked by 52/69 participants, 75.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Data analysis demonstrates that the majority of participants marked words as not understood/non-representative of their dialect on either V1 or V2. One question not understood or not answered could have an impact on how we interpret this patient-reported outcome measure in clinical practice. Use of currently available Spanish translations of the VHI-10 may yield unreliable results when used amongst Spanish speakers outside Spain due to dialectal and cultural differences. Future work will include validation of a voice patient-reported outcome measure that is culturally and linguistically appropriate for Spanish speakers outside Spain.