METHODS: We analysed 350 items used in 7 professional examinations and determined their distractor efficiency and the number of functional distractors per item. The items were sorted into five groups - excellent, good, fair, remediable and discarded based on their discrimination index. We studied how the distractor efficiency and functional distractors per item correlated with these five groups.
RESULTS: Correlation of distractor efficiency with psychometric indices was significant but far from perfect. The excellent group topped in distractor efficiency in 3 tests, the good group in one test, the remediable group equalled excellent group in one test, and the discarded group topped in 2 tests.
CONCLUSIONS: The distractor efficiency did not correlate in a consistent pattern with the discrimination index. Fifty per cent or higher distractor efficiency, not hundred percent, was found to be the optimum.
METHODS: This was a prospective cohort study. Each patient underwent pre- and post-shift voice analysis.
RESULTS: Among 42 teleoperators, 28 patients (66.7 per cent) completed all the tests. Female predominance (62 per cent) was noted, with a mean age of 40 years. Voice changes during working were reported by 48.1 per cent. Pre- and post-shift maximum phonation time (p < 0.018) and Voice Handicap Index-10 (p < 0.011) showed significant results with no correlation noted between subjective and objective assessment.
CONCLUSION: Maximum phonation time and Voice Handicap Index-10 are good voice assessment tools. The quality of evidence is inadequate to recommend 'gold standard' voice assessment until a better-quality study has been completed.