Background: In this systematic review, the aim is to investigate different VHI-30 versions between languages regarding their validity, reliability and their translation process.
Methods: Articles were extracted systematically from some of the prime databases including Cochrane, googlescholar, MEDLINE (via PubMed gate), Science direct, Web of science, and their reference lists by Voice Handicap Index keyword with only title limitation and time of publication (from 1997 to 2014). However the other limitations (e.g. excluding non-English, other versions of VHI ones, and so on) applied manually after studying the papers. In order to appraise the methodology of the papers, three authors did it by 12-item diagnostic test checklist in "Critical Appraisal Skills Programme" or (CASP) site. After applying all of the screenings, the papers that had the study eligibility criteria such as; translation, validity, and reliability processes, included in this review.
Results: The remained non-repeated articles were 12 from different languages. All of them reported validity, reliability and translation method, which presented in details in this review.
Conclusion: Mainly the preferred method for translation in the gathered papers was " Brislin’s classic back-translation model (1970), although the procedure was not performed completely but it was more prominent than other translation procedures. High test-retest reliability, internal consistency and moderate construct validity between different languages in regards to all 3 VHI-30 domains confirm the applicability of translated VHI-30 version across languages.