Research Article  |   February 2011
Establishing Validity of the Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V)
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Richard I. Zraick
    University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock
  • Gail B. Kempster
    Rush University, Chicago, IL
  • Susan Thibeault
    University of Wisconsin—Madison
  • Bernice K. Klaben
    University of Cincinnati Physicians, West Chester, OH
  • Carol R. Thrush
    University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences
  • Leslie E. Glaze
    University of Minnesota, Minneapolis
  • Contact author: Richard I. Zraick, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Mail Slot 772, 4301 West Markham Street, Little Rock, AR 72205. E-mail: zraickrichardi@uams.edu.
Speech, Voice & Prosodic Disorders / Voice Disorders / Research Article
Research Article   |   February 2011
Establishing Validity of the Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V)
American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology February 2011, Vol.20, 14-22. doi:10.1044/1058-0360(2010/09-0105)
History: Accepted 28 Jul 2010 , Received 03 Dec 2009 , Revised 03 May 2010
American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology February 2011, Vol.20, 14-22. doi:10.1044/1058-0360(2010/09-0105)
History: Accepted 28 Jul 2010 , Received 03 Dec 2009 , Revised 03 May 2010

Purpose: The Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V) was developed to provide a protocol and form for clinicians to use when assessing the voice quality of adults with voice disorders (Kempster, Gerratt, Verdolini Abbott, Barkmeier-Kramer, & Hillman, 2009). This study examined the reliability and the empirical validity of the CAPE-V when used by experienced voice clinicians judging normal and disordered voices.

Method: The validity of the CAPE-V was examined in 2 ways. First, we compared judgments made by 21 raters of 22 normal and 37 disordered voices using the CAPE-V and the GRBAS (grade, roughness, breathiness, asthenia, strain; see Hirano, 1981) scales. Second, we compared our raters' judgments of overall severity to a priori consensus judgments of severity for the 59 voices.

Results: Intrarater reliability coefficients for the CAPE-V ranged from .82 for breathiness to .35 for strain; interrater reliability ranged from .76 for overall severity to .28 for pitch.

Conclusions: Although both CAPE-V and GRBAS reliability coefficients varied across raters and parameters, this study reports slightly improved rater reliability using the CAPE-V to make perceptual judgments of voice quality in comparison to the GRBAS scale. The results provide evidence for the empirical (concurrent) validity of the CAPE-V.

Order a Subscription
Pay Per View
Entire American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology content & archive
24-hour access
This Article
24-hour access

Related Articles

Direct Magnitude Estimation and Interval Scaling of Naturalness and Severity in Tracheoesophageal (TE) Speakers
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research December 2002, Vol.45, 1088-1096. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2002/087)
The Role of Listener Experience on Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V) Ratings of Postthyroidectomy Voice
American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology August 2010, Vol.19, 248-258. doi:10.1044/1058-0360(2010/09-0012)
Developing a Single Comparison Stimulus for Matching Breathy Voice Quality
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research April 2012, Vol.55, 639-647. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2011/10-0337)
Inferring Speaker Attributes in Adductor Spasmodic Dysphonia: Ratings From Unfamiliar Listeners
American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology March 2014, Vol., 1-12. doi:10.1044/2013_AJSLP-13-0010
Identifying a Comparison for Matching Rough Voice Quality
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research October 2012, Vol.55, 1407-1422. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2012/11-0160)