Examining the Construct Validity of the V-RQOL in Speakers Who Use Alaryngeal Voice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The construct validity of the Voice-Related Quality of Life (V-RQOL; Hogikyan & Sethuraman, 1999) measure was evaluated in a sample of 109 individuals who have undergone total laryngectomy. METHOD: A principal components factor analysis was performed on participant responses to the 10-question V-RQOL measure. RESULTS: Factor analysis of the V-RQOL in our alaryngeal sample confirmed the presence of two factors (physical and social-emotional), which is consistent with the identified domains in the current V-RQOL. However, the current data indicate that some of the questions proposed by the original authors of the V-RQOL (Questions 7 and 9) do not align with their proposed domains in this postlaryngectomy sample. CONCLUSION: The results indicate that some V-RQOL questions do not align with their proposed domains. Consequently, an alternative scoring algorithm may be warranted for alaryngeal populations, and the authors make suggestions for this change that are simple and efficient. Based on the findings of the present factor analysis, use of this modified scoring procedure may serve to increase the sensitivity of the V-RQOL for those who are laryngectomized and use alaryngeal methods of voice and speech. Consequently, the value and application of the V-RQOL may be expanded in the clinical setting.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".