Review  |   May 2013
Evidence‐Based Clinical Voice Assessment: A Systematic Review
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Nelson Roy
    University of Utah, Salt Lake City
  • Julie Barkmeier‐Kraemer
    University of California–Davis, Sacramento
  • Tanya Eadie
    University of Washington, Seattle
  • M. Preeti Sivasankar
    Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN
  • Daryush Mehta
    Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA
  • Diane Paul
    American Speech‐Language‐Hearing Association, Rockville, MD
  • Robert Hillman
    Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA
  • Correspondence to Daryush Mehta: daryush.mehta@alum.mit.edu
  • Editor: Carol Scheffner Hammer
    Editor: Carol Scheffner Hammer×
  • Associate Editor: Rebecca Leonard
    Associate Editor: Rebecca Leonard×
Speech, Voice & Prosodic Disorders / Voice Disorders / Review
Review   |   May 2013
Evidence‐Based Clinical Voice Assessment: A Systematic Review
American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology May 2013, Vol.22, 212-226. doi:10.1044/1058-0360(2012/12-0014)
History: Accepted 10 Oct 2012 , Received 13 Feb 2012 , Revised 19 Jul 2012
American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology May 2013, Vol.22, 212-226. doi:10.1044/1058-0360(2012/12-0014)
History: Accepted 10 Oct 2012 , Received 13 Feb 2012 , Revised 19 Jul 2012

Purpose: To determine what research evidence exists to support the use of voice measures in the clinical assessment of patients with voice disorders.

Method: The American Speech‐Language‐Hearing Association (ASHA) National Center for Evidence‐Based Practice in Communication Disorders staff searched 29 databases for peer‐reviewed English‐language articles between January 1930 and April 2009 that included key words pertaining to objective and subjective voice measures, voice disorders, and diagnostic accuracy. The identified articles were systematically assessed by an ASHA‐appointed committee employing a modification of the critical appraisal of diagnostic evidence rating system.

Results: One hundred articles met the search criteria. The majority of studies investigated acoustic measures (60%) and focused on how well a test method identified the presence or absence of a voice disorder (78%). Only 17 of the 100 articles were judged to contain adequate evidence for the measures studied to be formally considered for inclusion in clinical voice assessment.

Conclusion: Results provide evidence for selected acoustic, laryngeal imaging–based, auditory–perceptual, functional, and aerodynamic measures to be used as effective components in a clinical voice evaluation. However, there is clearly a pressing need for further high‐quality research to produce sufficient evidence on which to recommend a comprehensive set of methods for a standard clinical voice evaluation.

Order a Subscription
Pay Per View
Entire American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology content & archive
24-hour access
This Article
24-hour access

Related Articles

Determining the Presence or Absence of Middle Ear Disorders: An Evidence-Based Systematic Review on the Diagnostic Accuracy of Selected Assessment Instruments
American Journal of Audiology December 2012, Vol.21, 251-268. doi:10.1044/1059-0889(2012/11-0029)
A Systematic Review of Assessments for Identifying Executive Function Impairment in Adults With Acquired Brain Injury
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research June 2013, Vol.56, 1051-1064. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2012/12-0147)
Quantification of Static and Dynamic Supraglottic Activity
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research December 2001, Vol.44, 1245-1256. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2001/097)
Diagnostic Examination of Children With Voice Disorders
Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools October 1992, Vol.23, 353-360. doi:10.1044/0161-1461.2304.353
SIGnatures: The Quest for Voice Assessment Guidelines
The ASHA Leader March 2013, Vol.18, 54-55. doi:10.1044/leader.SIGN.18032013.54