Validity and Reliability of the Glottal Function Index | Allergy and Clinical Immunology | JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 34.204.186.91. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
1.
Belafsky  PCPostma  GNReul Bach  TRHolland  BWKoufman  JA Muscle tension dysphonia as a sign of underlying glottal insufficiency.  Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2002;127448- 451PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
2.
Koufman  JABlalock  PDKemp  ESCline  SBelafsky  PC Utility of electroglottography (EGG) with unloading in the diagnosis of vocal fold paresis.  Paper presented at: American Academy of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery Meeting; September 10, 2001; Denver, Colo
3.
Koufman  JAPostma  GNCummings  MMBlalock  PD Vocal fold paresis.  Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2000;122537- 541PubMedGoogle Scholar
4.
Jacobson  BHJohnson  AGrimalkin  C  et al.  The Voice Handicap Index (VHI): development and validation.  Am J Speech Lang Pathol 1997;666- 70Google Scholar
5.
Gliklich  REGlossy  RMMontgomery  WW Validation of a voice outcome survey for unilateral vocal cord paralysis.  Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1999;120153- 158PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
Hogikyan  NDSeth Raman  G Validation of an instrument to measure voice-related quality of life.  J Voice 1999;13557- 569PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
7.
Isshiki  NMorita  HOkamura  HHiram to  M Thyroplasty as a new phonosurgical technique.  Acta Otolaryngol 1974;78451- 457PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
8.
Isshiki  NTanabe  MSawada  M Arytenoid adduction for unilateral vocal cord paralysis.  Arch Otolaryngol 1978;104555- 558PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
9.
Koufman  J Laryngoplasty for vocal fold medialization: an alternative to Teflon.  Laryngoscope 1986;96726- 731PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
10.
Koufman  JAIsaacson  G Laryngoplastic phonosurgery.  Otolaryngol Clin North Am 1991;241151- 1177Google Scholar
11.
Postma  GNBlalock  PDKoufman  JA Bilateral medialization laryngoplasty.  Laryngoscope 1998;1081429- 1434PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
12.
Brazier  JEHarper  RJones  NMB  et al.  Validating the SF-36 health survey questionnaire: new outcome measure for primary care.  BMJ 1992;305160- 164PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
13.
Spector  BCNetterville  JLBillante  CClary  JReinisch  LSmith  TL Quality-of-life assessment in patients with unilateral vocal cord paralysis.  Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2001;125176- 182PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
14.
Leder  SBSasaki  CT Long-term changes in vocal quality following Isshiki thyroplasty type I.  Laryngoscope 1994;104275- 277PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
15.
Omori  KSlavit  DHKacker  ABlaugrund  SM Quantitative criteria for predicting thyroplasty type I outcome.  Laryngoscope 1996;106689- 693PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
16.
Lu  FLCasiano  RRLundy  DSXue  JW Longitudinal evaluation of vocal function after thyroplasty type I in the treatment of unilateral vocal paralysis.  Laryngoscope 1996;106573- 577PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
17.
Rosen  CA Phonosurgical vocal fold injection: procedures and materials.  Otolaryngol Clin North Am 2000;331087- 1096PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
18.
Bryant  NJGracco  LCSasaki  CTVining  E MRI evaluation of vocal fold paralysis before and after type I thyroplasty.  Laryngoscope 1996;1061386- 1392PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
19.
Ford  CNUnger  JMZundel  RSBless  DM Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) assessment of vocal fold medialization surgery.  Laryngoscope 1995;105498- 504PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
20.
Hogikyan  NDWodchis  WPTerrell  JEBradford  CREsclamado  RM Longitudinal effects of botulinum toxin injections on voice-related quality of life (V-RQOL) for patients with adductory spasmodic dysphonia.  J Voice 2001;15576- 586PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
21.
Rosen  CAMurry  TZinn  AZullo  TSonbolian  M Voice handicap index change following treatment of voice disorders.  J Voice 2000;14619- 623PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Original Article
November 2005

Validity and Reliability of the Glottal Function Index

Author Affiliations

Author Affiliations: Departments of Otolaryngology/Head and Neck Surgery, Naval Medical Center San Diego, San Diego, Calif (Dr Bach), University of California, Davis, Sacramento (Dr Belafsky), and Tulane University, New Orleans, La (Dr Wasylik); and Department of Otolaryngology, Center for Voice Disorders, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC (Drs Postma and Koufman).

Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2005;131(11):961-964. doi:10.1001/archotol.131.11.961
Abstract

Objective  To evaluate a symptom-focused vocal impairment instrument for the evaluation of patients with voice disorders.

Design  Prospective, nonrandomized study of patients with voice disorders undergoing treatment with validation of a new symptom index, the Glottal Function Index (GFI).

Setting  Voice disorders clinic at an academic tertiary care hospital.

Patients  Consecutive patients undergoing therapy for glottal insufficiency, adductor spasmodic dysphonia, nodules, and granuloma (40 patients in each group) and 40 control patients.

Interventions  The Pearson correlation coefficient was used to evaluate GFI reproducibility and to compare it with the Voice Handicap Index (VHI). The paired-samples t test was used to compare pretherapy and posttherapy GFI values.

Main Outcome Measures  Correlation of GFI with VHI; comparison of the GFI in normals, and in pretherapy and posttherapy GFI and VHI scores.

Results  The mean ± SD normative GFI score was 0.87 ± 1.32. The correlation coefficient for GFI between independent pretherapy measurements was 0.56 (P<.001). The correlation coefficient between total GFI and total VHI scores was 0.61 (P<.001). The mean posttherapy GFI scores improved among all groups as follows: glottal insufficiency: presenting GFI score, 12.7 ± 4.1; posttherapy GFI score, 6.8±5.4; nodules: presenting GFI score, 12.9 ± 4.2; posttherapy GFI score, 8.9 ± 4.6; adductor spasmodic dysphonia: presenting GFI score, 13.2 ± 4.1; posttherapy GFI score, 8.9 ± 4.9; and granuloma: presenting GFI score, 7.8 ± 4.6; posttherapy GFI score, 3.8 ± 2.1. Relative to controls, the GFI score at presentation was significantly elevated and demonstrated significant reduction following treatment across each of these entities (P<.05).

Conclusions  The GFI is a reliable, reproducible, 4-item, self-administered symptom index with excellent criterion-based and construct validity. Its advantages over existing indexes include brevity and ease of administration. The GFI is a useful adjunct in the evaluation and treatment of patients with glottal dysfunction.

×