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×
Article Information
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: Received February 13, 2012 , Revised July 19, 2012 , Accepted October 10, 2012
 
American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, May 2013, Vol. 22, 212-226. doi:10.1044/1058-0360(2012/12-0014)
History: Received February 13, 2012; Revised July 19, 2012; Accepted October 10, 2012
Web of Science® Times Cited: 6

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.

Acknowledgments
This systematic review was developed by the Ad Hoc Working Group for Clinical Voice Assessment under the auspices of Special Interest Group 3, Voice and Voice Disorders, of the American Speech‐Language‐Hearing Association (ASHA). The authors thank Leigh Deussing of ASHA for her support in developing the CADE–M form and for feedback during the review process. We thank Lauren Pecora and Kristin Slagle for their help with data transcription and transfer. We would also like to thank National Center for Evidence‐Based Practice in Communication Disorders' staff members Tracy Schooling, Hillary Leech, and Rebecca Venediktov for their invaluable assistance with the literature review.
Order a Subscription
Pay Per View
Entire American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology content & archive
24-hour access
This Article
24-hour access