Clinical Use of the CAPE-V Scales: Agreement, Reliability and Notes on Voice Quality.

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: The CAPE-V is a widely used protocol developed to help standardize the evaluation of voice. Variability of voice quality ratings has prevented development of training protocols that might themselves improve interrater agreement among new clinicians. As part of a larger mixed methods project, this study examines agreement and reliability for experienced clinicians using the CAPE-V scales. STUDY DESIGN: Observational. METHODS: Experienced voice clinicians (N=20) provided ratings of recordings from 12 speakers representing a range of overall voice quality. Participants were instructed to rate the voices as they normally would, using the CAPE-V scales. Descriptive data were recorded and two levels of agreement were calculated. Single rater reliability was calculated using a 2-way random model of absolute agreement for intraclass correlations (ICC [2,1]). RESULTS: Participants use of the CAPE-V scales varied considerably, although most rated overall severity, breathiness, roughness and strain. Data from one participant did not meet a priori agreement criteria. Because outcomes were significantly different without their data, agreement and reliability were analyzed based on the reduced data set from 19 participants. Interrater agreement and reliability were comparable to previous research; the mean range of ratings was at least 47mm for all dimensions of voice quality. CONCLUSIONS: Results indicated differential use of the components of the CAPE-V form and scales in evaluating voice quality and severity of dysphonia, including categorical variability among ratings of all of the primary CAPE-V dimensions of voice quality that may complicate the clinical description of a voice as mildly, moderately or severely dysphonic.