Validity and responsiveness of VELO: a velopharyngeal insufficiency quality of life measure.

Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg

Department of Otolaryngology, University of Washington, 1959 NE Pacific Street, Box 356515, Seattle, WA 98195-6515, USA.

Published: August 2013

AI Article Synopsis

  • The study aimed to evaluate the Velopharyngeal Insufficiency (VPI) Effects on Life Outcomes (VELO) instrument in terms of its validity, reliability, and responsiveness in assessing quality of life in children with VPI.
  • It involved 59 children diagnosed with VPI and 84 parents, with assessments conducted before and after treatment options like palatoplasty and pharyngoplasty.
  • Results indicated that while VELO did not meet all validity criteria, it showed strong reliability and responsiveness, suggesting it could be useful for measuring quality of life specifically related to VPI issues.

Article Abstract

Objective: Test the Velopharyngeal Insufficiency (VPI) Effects on Life Outcomes (VELO) instrument for validity, reliability, and responsiveness.

Study Design: Observational cohort.

Setting: Academic tertiary medical center.

Subjects: Children with VPI (n = 59) and their parents (n = 84) were prospectively enrolled from a pediatric VPI clinic.

Methods: Pediatric speech language pathologists diagnosed VPI using perceptual speech analysis and rated VPI severity and speech intelligibility deficit (each as minimal, mild, moderate, or severe). All parents and youth 8+ years old (n = 24) completed the VELO instrument and other quality-of-life questionnaires at baseline; the first 40 subjects completed the VELO instrument again 2 weeks later. Treatments included Furlow palatoplasty (n = 20), sphincter pharyngoplasty (n = 14), or an obturator (n = 2), and 29 of 36 (81%) subjects completed the questionnaires 3 months posttreatment. VELO was tested with correlations for criterion validity against VPI severity, construct validity against speech intelligibility and velopharyngeal gap size, and concurrent validity against other quality-of-life measures (r > .40 demonstrating validity); for test-retest reliability using intraclass correlation (>.6 demonstrating reliability); and for responsiveness with the 3-month posttreatment measure using the paired t test.

Results: Parental responses are reported; youth responses showed similar results. The VELO instrument did not meet criterion validity (r = -.18, P = .10), or functional construct validity (r = -.37, P = .001), but did meet anatomic construct and concurrent validity (each r > .50, P < .01). VELO scores demonstrated excellent test-retest reliability (r = .85, P < .001) and responsiveness (baseline 54 ± 14 to posttreatment 70 ± 18, P < .001).

Conclusion: VELO provides a VPI-specific quality-of-life instrument that demonstrates concurrent validity, test-retest reliability, and responsiveness to change in quality of life with treatment.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4074517PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0194599813486081DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

velo instrument
16
concurrent validity
12
test-retest reliability
12
validity
10
velo
8
velopharyngeal insufficiency
8
quality life
8
vpi severity
8
speech intelligibility
8
completed velo
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!