Ingo R Titze1,2, Tobias Riede3, Anil Palaparthi1, Linda S Hynan4, Amy Hamilton5, Laura Toles5,6, Ted Mau5. 1. National Center for Voice and Speech, University of Utah, Salt Lake City. 2. Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, The University of Iowa, Iowa City. 3. Department of Physiology, Midwestern University, Glendale, AZ. 4. Departments of Clinical Sciences and Psychiatry, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas. 5. Clinical Center for Voice Care, Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas. 6. MGH Institute of Health Professions, Center for Laryngeal Surgery and Voice Rehabilitation, Boston, MA.
Abstract
Purpose: The purposes of this study are to introduce the concept of vocal priorities based on acoustic correlates, to develop an instrument to determine these vocal priorities, and to analyze the pattern of vocal priorities in patients with voice disorders. Method: Questions probing the importance of 5 vocal attributes (vocal clarity, loudness, mean speaking pitch, pitch range, vocal endurance) were generated from consensus conference involving speech-language pathologists, laryngologists, and voice scientists, as well as patient feedback. The responses to the preliminary items from 213 subjects were subjected to exploratory factor analysis, which confirmed 4 of the predefined domains. The final instrument consisted of a 16-item Vocal Priority Questionnaire probing the relative importance of clarity, loudness, mean speaking pitch, and pitch range. Results: The Vocal Priority Questionnaire had high reliability (Cronbach's α = .824) and good construct validity. A majority of the cohort (61%) ranked vocal clarity as their highest vocal priority, and 20%, 12%, and 7% ranked loudness, mean speaking pitch, and pitch range, respectively, as their highest priority. The frequencies of the highest ranked priorities did not differ by voice diagnosis or by sex. Considerable individual variation in vocal priorities existed within these large trends. Conclusions: A patient's vocal priorities can be identified and taken into consideration in planning behavioral or surgical intervention for a voice disorder. Inclusion of vocal priorities in treatment planning empowers the patient in shared decision making, helps the clinician tailor treatment, and may also improve therapy compliance.
Purpose: The purposes of this study are to introduce the concept of vocal priorities based on acoustic correlates, to develop an instrument to determine these vocal priorities, and to analyze the pattern of vocal priorities in patients with voice disorders. Method: Questions probing the importance of 5 vocal attributes (vocal clarity, loudness, mean speaking pitch, pitch range, vocal endurance) were generated from consensus conference involving speech-language pathologists, laryngologists, and voice scientists, as well as patient feedback. The responses to the preliminary items from 213 subjects were subjected to exploratory factor analysis, which confirmed 4 of the predefined domains. The final instrument consisted of a 16-item Vocal Priority Questionnaire probing the relative importance of clarity, loudness, mean speaking pitch, and pitch range. Results: The Vocal Priority Questionnaire had high reliability (Cronbach's α = .824) and good construct validity. A majority of the cohort (61%) ranked vocal clarity as their highest vocal priority, and 20%, 12%, and 7% ranked loudness, mean speaking pitch, and pitch range, respectively, as their highest priority. The frequencies of the highest ranked priorities did not differ by voice diagnosis or by sex. Considerable individual variation in vocal priorities existed within these large trends. Conclusions: A patient's vocal priorities can be identified and taken into consideration in planning behavioral or surgical intervention for a voice disorder. Inclusion of vocal priorities in treatment planning empowers the patient in shared decision making, helps the clinician tailor treatment, and may also improve therapy compliance.
Authors: David Cella; William Riley; Arthur Stone; Nan Rothrock; Bryce Reeve; Susan Yount; Dagmar Amtmann; Rita Bode; Daniel Buysse; Seung Choi; Karon Cook; Robert Devellis; Darren DeWalt; James F Fries; Richard Gershon; Elizabeth A Hahn; Jin-Shei Lai; Paul Pilkonis; Dennis Revicki; Matthias Rose; Kevin Weinfurt; Ron Hays Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2010-08-04 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Paul Hong; Erin Maguire; Ayala Y Gorodzinsky; Janet A Curran; Krista Ritchie; Jill Chorney Journal: Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2016-05-20 Impact factor: 1.675
Authors: Chayadevie Nanjundeswaran; Nicole Y K Li; Karen M K Chan; Richard K S Wong; Edwin M-L Yiu; Katherine Verdolini-Abbott Journal: J Voice Date: 2012-08-24 Impact factor: 2.009
Authors: Emily F Boss; Nishchay Mehta; Neeraja Nagarajan; Anne Links; James R Benke; Zackary Berger; Ali Espinel; Jeremy Meier; Ellen A Lipstein Journal: Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2015-12-08 Impact factor: 3.497
Authors: Jason C Nellis; Jeff D Sharon; Seth E Pross; Lisa E Ishii; Masaru Ishii; Jacob K Dey; Howard W Francis Journal: Otol Neurotol Date: 2017-03 Impact factor: 2.311
Authors: France Légaré; Dawn Stacey; Stéphane Turcotte; Marie-Joëlle Cossi; Jennifer Kryworuchko; Ian D Graham; Anne Lyddiatt; Mary C Politi; Richard Thomson; Glyn Elwyn; Norbert Donner-Banzhoff Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2014-09-15