Cited by 6Voice and Speech DisordersHealth Education and ValidationPsychometric Methodologies and Testing

Factor Analysis of the Persian Version of the Voice Disability Coping Questionnaire

Salehimanesh, Farzaneh, Soltani, Majid, Dastoorpoor, Maryam, Moradi, Negin·2020·Journal of Voice

Abstract

Introduction Voice disorders can affect the quality of life and coping mechanisms and also coping mechanisms can affect the way in which patients deal with their voice problems. People with voice disorders need to use coping strategies to deal with the problems caused by their voice disorder. The purpose of this study was to examine the psychometric properties and cultural adaptation of the Voice Disability Coping Questionnaire in the Iranian population. Methods The translation and cross-cultural adaptation procedures were performed according to the basic rules and instructions set by the International Quality of Life Assessment Project. Two hundred and forty-eight adults (218 patients with voice disorder and 30 healthy controls) were participated in the study. Face and content validity, clinical validity, and construct validity of the questionnaire were investigated by modern psychometric methods. Results Quantitative methods were used to measure content validity and all items were detected applicable. This means that the final version was clear and easy to answer. Clinical validity shows that the Persian version of VDCQ can distinguish between patients and healthy controls (P Conclusion Based on modern statistical analysis conducted in this study, the original 15 item questionnaire was reduced to 12 item. The 12 item questionnaire is a valid and reliable tool for quantifying coping strategies in people with voice disorder.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jvoice.2019.06.001

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • PCA was considered feasible if the KMO measure was greater than 0.6 and the Bartlett's test of sphericity p-value was less than 0.05.

    “PCA was considered feasible if the KMO measure was greater than 0.6 and the Bartlett's test of sphericity p-value was less than 0.05 [41][42][43][44].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Salehimanesh, F., Soltani, M., Dastoorpoor, M., & Moradi, N.
Affiliations
Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences (IR)
Corresponding author
Moradi, Negin
Venue
Journal of Voice
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-11
Volume
34
Issue
6
Pages
965.e1-965.e11
ISSN
0892-1997 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2959629754
Cited by
6
References
2
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 1
FWCI
0.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Voice (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Voice and Speech Disorders
  • Social Sciences › Education › Health Education and Validation
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
Keywords
voice disorders, coping strategies, Persian translation, cross-cultural adaptation, psychometric properties, factor structure, questionnaire reduction, internal consistency, Iranian patients
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Adult, Cross-Sectional Studies, Factor Analysis, Statistical, Humans, Iran, Psychometrics, Quality of Life, Surveys and Questionnaires, Reproducibility of Results

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review