SLPOtherCoDAS2026

Content-based validity evidence of the Acute Voice Fatigue Self-Perception Scale (AFA-Voz Scale).

Priscila Oliveira, Mara Behlau

PMID 41983825

WHAT IT FOUND

A new scale asks voice users to rate right now their fatigue, neck or throat discomfort, and limitation in voice use, each from 0 to 10.

Five voice experts judged every item fully relevant. It has not been tested with patients, so it is not ready for clinical use.

Key findings

01After a second round of expert review and the changes the judges asked for, the content validity index for the whole scale and for every item came out at 1.00, which the authors describe as excellent agreement.

02The finished scale has three items, each answered on a 0 to 10 number scale: how fatigued the voice feels now, physical discomfort in the neck or throat, and limitation in voice use.

03The authors state the instrument is not yet ready for clinical use, and that reliability, internal structure, and comparison with other measures still have to be tested.

STILL TO COME

How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for SLPs

Read the rest of this summary

You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.

Already have one?

What it does not show

Only five people judged the items, and all five were voice specialists with more than a decade of experience. The people who would actually fill the scale in were never consulted, so the paper cannot say whether a teacher or a singer reads the questions the same way the experts did. This paper covers content validity only. Reliability, internal structure, and agreement with other measures have not been examined, so there is no evidence yet about how the scale behaves in real use. The instrument has not been applied to anyone. The paper reports no scores from voice users and no comparison with the Vocal Fatigue Index or any other tool.

Declared interests

The work was funded by CNPq, Brazil's National Council for Scientific and Technological Development, through a postdoctoral fellowship under call number 49/2024. The funding and conflicts of interest section as supplied reports this funding only and names no competing interests.

The easy way to misread this

Do not treat this as a validated questionnaire you can hand to a patient. The only evidence in the paper is that five expert judges agreed the items were relevant. No voice user has filled it in, and its reliability and its agreement with existing tools have not been tested, so the authors themselves say the scale is not ready for clinical use.

Summarised by AI from the full paper, without a clinician reviewing it. Check it against the source before it changes what you do. Read it on PubMed →