Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Validity, reliability and reproducibility of the VLS parameters form for the collection of videolaryngostroboscopic basic findings

  • Laryngology
  • Published:
European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

The videolaryngostroboscopy parameters form (VLSP form) is a diagnostic tool for the collection of videolaryngostroboscopic basic findings through the evaluation of 12 parameters. The aim of the present study is to preliminarily investigate intra- and inter-rater reliability, validity and responsiveness of the VLSP form.

Methods

A study on a total amount of 160 forms for the evaluation of VLS basic findings was carried out. 80 forms were scored through the VLSP form and 80 with the Voice Vibratory Assessment with Laryngeal Imaging (VALI) form Stroboscopy (S) by four expert phoniatricians, that blindly scored the VLS recordings of 5 subjects without voice disorders and 5 patients with organic voice disorder before and after successful phonosurgery. Intra-rater and inter-rater analysis have been performed for both forms. The scores obtained through VLSP form and VALI form S have been compared to analyse concurrent validity, while VLSP scores before and after phonosurgery have been compared to analyse responsiveness. Finally, each rater annotated the “difficulty” in rating every parameter and its “importance” for the diagnosis.

Results

The VLSP form showed good inter- and intra-rater reliability. It showed a good accuracy for the documentation of changes of laryngeal anatomy and function after phonosurgery, similarly to the VALI form S. The 12 parameters of the VLSP form were judged “Slightly Important” in 28.3% of the samples, “Very Important” in 64.8% of the samples, “Not Difficult” in 73.1% of the samples.

Conclusions

The results of the present study suggest that the VLSP form is comparable to the VALI form S for the evaluation of videolaryngostroboscopic parameters and is a valid, reliable and reproducible diagnostic tool. It can help voice clinicians in the evaluation of VLS examinations and it allows for a punctual assessment of modifications in laryngeal anatomy and function in pathological conditions and after phonosurgery.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hirano M, Bless D (1993) Videostroboscopic examination of the larynx. Singular Publishing Group, INC., San Diego

    Google Scholar 

  2. Cornut G, Bouchayer M (1986) Apport de la vidéostroboscopie dans les indications de phonochirurgie. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Belg 40:436–442

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Crosetti E, Pilolli F, Succo G (2012) Nuove strategie di stadi azione endoscopica nel carcinoma laringeo: la multistep endoscopy. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital 32:175–181

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Dejonckere PH, Bradley P, Clemente P, Cornut G, Crevier-Buchman L, Friedrich G, Van De Heyning P, Remacle M, Woisard V, Committee on Phoniatrics of the European Laryngological Society (ELS) (2001) A basic Protocol for functional assessment of voice pathology, especially for investigating the efficacy of (phonosurgical) treatments and evaluating new assessment techniques. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 258:77–82

  5. Lechien JR, Geneid A, Bohlender JE, Cantarella G, Avellaneda JC, Desuter G, Sjogren EV, Finck C, Hans S, Hess M, Oguz H, Remacle MJ, Schneider-Stickler B, Tedla M, Schindler A, Vilaseca I, Zabrodsky M, Dikkers FG, Crevier-Buchman L (2023) Consensus for voice quality assessment in clinical practice: guidelines of the European Laryngological Society and Union of the European Phoniatricians. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-023-08211-6. (Epub ahead of print. PMID: 37707614)

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Ricci-Maccarini A, Lucchini E (2002) La valutazione soggettiva e obiettiva della disfonia. Official lecture at the XXXVI National Congress of the Italian Society of Phoniatrics and Logopedics (SIFEL). Acta Phon Lat 26:13–42

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bless DM, Hirano M, Feder RJ (1987) Videostroboscopic evaluation of the larynx. Ear Nose Throat J 66(7):289–296

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Ricci-Maccarini A, Bergamini G, Fustos R (2018) Proposal of a form for the collection of videolaryngostroboscopy basic findings. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 275:1927–1933

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Poburka Bj., RR. Patel, Bless DN (2017) Voice-vibratory assessment with laryngeal imaging (VALI) form: reliability of rating stroboscopy and high-speed videoendoscopy. J. Voice 31(4):523.e1–513.e14

  10. Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33(1):159–174 (PMID: 843571)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Poburka BJ (1999) A new stroboscopy rating form. J Voice 13:403–413

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Bonilha HS, Desjardins M, Garand KL, Martin-Harris B (2018) Parameters and scales used to assess and report findings from stroboscopy: a systematic review. J Voice 32(6):734–755. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2017.09.018. (Epub 2017 Nov 2)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The Authors acknowledge Dr. Erennio Natale for his contribution in the preparation of the forms for the raters.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. ORL Unit, Surgical Department, Bufalini Hospital, Cesena, Italy

    Andrea Ricci-Maccarini

  2. Department of Clinical Sciences and Community Health, University of Milan, Milan, Italy

    Francesco Mozzanica

  3. Department of Otorhinolaryngology, San Giuseppe Hospital, IRCCS Multimedica, Milan, Italy

    Francesco Mozzanica

  4. Otorhinolaryngology Service, Koelliker Hospital, Turin, Italy

    Marco Fantini

  5. Otorhinolaryngology Service, San Feliciano Hospital, Rome, Italy

    Marco Fantini

  6. ORL Unit, Neurosensorial Department, Monsignor Dimiccoli Hospital, Barletta, Italy

    Salvatore Dadduzio

  7. P.C.M. Surgical Health Center of Modena, Modena, Italy

    Giuseppe Bergamini

  8. Section “Claudiana”, University of Rome “Cattolica”, Bolzano, Italy

    Rolando Fustos

  9. Department of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences, L. Sacco Hospital, University of Milan, Milan, Italy

    Antonio Schindler

Authors
  1. Andrea Ricci-Maccarini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Francesco Mozzanica
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Marco Fantini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Salvatore Dadduzio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Giuseppe Bergamini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Rolando Fustos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Antonio Schindler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marco Fantini.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in this retrospective study involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Presented at the PanEuropeanVoiceConference in Tallin on August 24th–27th, 2022.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ricci-Maccarini, A., Mozzanica, F., Fantini, M. et al. Validity, reliability and reproducibility of the VLS parameters form for the collection of videolaryngostroboscopic basic findings. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 281, 2489–2497 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-024-08480-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-024-08480-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation