BACKGROUND: The primary purpose was to assess if VAS or Likert was relatively more suitable when assessing self-ratings of voice and speech in @entity1 treated for @entity5 . An additional purpose was to investigate whether the scales differed in measuring change after treatment. MATERIAL/METHODS: Using both VAS and Likert, 71 @entity1 answered three questions at baseline and 12 months after treatment began. For test-retest analyses, additional data were used from 21 subjects. Non-parametric statistical methods suitable for comparing scales with different numbers of response alternatives were applied. RESULTS: Test-retest reliability was strongest for the Likert scale. From baseline to follow-up, both scales detected significant improvements. However, for some Likert scores the associated VAS values varied across a wide range, and this was true for assessments at baseline, at follow-up, and for score changes. At baseline the inter-scale concordance showed a greater number of @entity74 than at follow-up and on both occasions the older group produced a greater number of @entity74 . CONCLUSIONS: No support for the superiority of VAS over Likert was found. However, VAS may produce instability in response patterns. When using self-ratings of voice and speech to identify a need of further rehabilitation, Likert scales seem better suited.

Is a line the same as a box? Speech assessment by VAS is not superior to Likert scales in @entity5 XXXX .

@entity1 :: ('9606', 'Species') :: ['patients'] @entity74 :: ('MESH:D030342', 'Disease') :: ['disordered pairs'] @entity5 :: ('MESH:D009369', 'Disease') :: ['laryngeal cancer']
@entity1 :: (9606,Species) :: ['patients']
