Related Experiment Video
Updated: Mar 27, 2026
Minimally Invasive Murine Laryngoscopy for Close-Up Imaging of Laryngeal Motion During Breathing and Swallowing
Published on: December 1, 2023
The Effect of Experience on Videolaryngostroboscopic Ratings Using Two Different Rating Tools
Cara L Sauder1, J P Giliberto2, Neel Bhatt2
1Department of Speech and Hearing Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
Objectives:
This study examined videolaryngostroboscopy (VLS) ratings from 9 speech-language pathologist (SLP) trainees and 8 experienced SLPs using 2 rating tools.
Methods:
Participants rated 3 parameters (free edge, amplitude, mucosal wave) for 16 VLS exams using the Voice Vibratory Assessment of Laryngeal Imaging (VALI). They also rated deviance from "normal" for these parameters and rated overall severity using a 100 mm visual analog scale (VAS). Intrarater and interrater reliability were calculated. Average ratings were compared using independent t tests for scaled data.
Results:
For the VALI, intrarater reliability for vibratory VLS parameters was variable for both groups (trainees: Spearman's rho (p) = 0.24-0.81; experienced (p) = 0.43-0.57), and intrarater agreement for free edge contour was moderate for both (trainees: Fleiss' 4 ϰ = 0.30-0.35; experienced = 0.37-0.42). Using the VAS, intrarater reliability for all parameters was high for trainees (Spearman's rho (p) = 0.77-0.95), and variable for experienced SLPs (Spearman's rho (p) = 0.46-0.83), whereas overall severity was similar for both groups (trainees: Spearman's rho (p) = 0.83; experienced (p) = 0.82). For the VALI, interrater reliability for vibratory VLS parameters (trainees: ICC = 0.82-0.93; experienced ICC = 0.76-0.91) and free edge contour (trainees: Fleiss' ϰ = 0.28-0.32; experienced: = 0.37-0.42) were similar. Using the VAS, interrater reliability for all VLS parameters was moderate to excellent for both groups (trainees: ICC = 0.85-0.94; experienced: = 0.79-0.94), and overall severity was excellent for both groups (ICC = 0.93-0.94). Using the VALI, trainees rated amplitude as higher than experienced SLPs (P < 0.05), but other differences were not significant. All VAS ratings were judged to be more deviant from "normal" by trainees versus experienced SLPs (P < 0.05).
Conclusions:
Rater groups demonstrated similar interrater reliability using both rating tools. Trainees rated VLS parameters and overall severity as more severe than experienced SLPs.
