Research Article| Volume 34, ISSUE 3, P442-446, May 2020

Resident Education in Laryngeal Stroboscopy and Perceptual Voice Evaluation: An Assessment

Published:December 10, 2018DOI:



      To evaluate otolaryngology residents’ level of confidence and understanding in interpreting laryngeal stroboscopy.


      Otolaryngology residents from three residency programs with fellowship-trained laryngologists on faculty were invited to participate. An assessment consisting of a survey and five stroboscopic exams was administered. Each exam consisted of questions on perceptual voice evaluation, laryngoscopic findings, and stroboscopic findings. Scores were compared to answers provided by three fellowship-trained laryngologists.


      Thirty-eight of 47 invited residents (80.8%) enrolled in the study. On a five-point likert scale, residents reported low confidence (median = 2, range = 1–4) in interpreting stroboscopy, regardless of training program (P = 0.81). Mean assessment scores were 56.5% ± 11.9, with scores in perceptual voice evaluation = 68.5% ± 10.6; laryngoscopy = 70.2% ± 12.8; and stroboscopy = 45.3% ± 17.8. Residents performed worse on stroboscopy questions compared to laryngoscopy questions (P < 0.0001). There was a significant difference in scores by postgraduate year (P = 0.03), but not by institution (P = 0.34). A moderately positive correlation between reported level of confidence and overall scores (ρ = .47, P = 0.003) was demonstrated.


      Despite didactic and clinical exposure, residents report low confidence in interpreting stroboscopy and scored lower on stroboscopy-specific questions compared to other assessment items. Additional resources and learning opportunities are needed to improve resident confidence and comprehension of stroboscopy.

      Key Words

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to Journal of Voice
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Roy N
        • Merrill RM
        • Gray SD
        • et al.
        Voice disorders in the general population: prevalence, risk factors, and occupational impact.
        Laryngoscope. 2005; 115: 1988-1995
        • Cohen SM
        Self-reported impact of dysphonia in a primary care population: an epidemiological study.
        Laryngoscope. 2010; 120: 2022-2032
        • Stachler RJ
        • Francis DO
        • Schwartz SR
        • et al.
        Clinical practice guideline: hoarseness (Dysphonia) (Update).
        Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2018; 158: S1-S42
        • Mehta DD
        • Hillman RE
        Current role of stroboscopy in laryngeal imaging.
        Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2012; 20: 429-436
        • Sulica L
        Hoarseness misattributed to reflux: sources and patterns of error.
        Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2014; 123: 442-445
        • Rafii B
        • Taliercio S
        • Achlatis S
        • et al.
        Incidence of underlying laryngeal pathology in patients initially diagnosed with laryngopharyngeal reflux.
        Laryngoscope. 2014; 124: 1420-1424
        • Cohen SM
        • Pitman MJ
        • Noordzij JP
        • et al.
        Evaluation of dysphonic patients by general otolaryngologists.
        J Voice. 2012; 26: 772-778
        • Cohen SM
        • Thomas S
        • Roy N
        • et al.
        Frequency and factors associated with use of videolaryngostroboscopy in voice disorder assessment.
        Laryngoscope. 2014; 124: 2118-2124
        • Cohen SM
        • Kim J
        • Roy N
        • et al.
        Change in diagnosis and treatment following specialty voice evaluation: a national database analysis.
        Laryngoscope. 2015; 125: 1660-1666
      1. American Board of Otolaryngology. Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Comprehensive Core Curriculum (October 2007). Available at: Accessed July 29, 2018.

        • Harris PA
        • Taylor R
        • Thielke R
        • et al.
        Research electronic data capture (REDCap)–a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support.
        J Biomed Inform. 2009; 42: 377-381
        • Hirano M.
        Clinical examination of voice.
        Springer-Verlag, New York, New York1981
        • Oertel MJ
        Das Laryngo-stroboskop und die Laryngo-stroboskpische untersuchung.
        Arch Laryngol Rhinol (Berl). 1895; 3
        • Casiano RR
        • Zaveri V
        • Lundy DS
        Efficacy of videostroboscopy in the diagnosis of voice disorders.
        Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1992; 107: 95-100
        • Sataloff RT
        • Spiegel JR
        • Hawkshaw MJ
        Strobovideolaryngoscopy: results and clinical value.
        Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 1991; 100: 725-727
        • Woo P
        • Colton R
        • Casper J
        • et al.
        Diagnostic value of stroboscopic examination in hoarse patients.
        J Voice. 1991; 5: 231-238
      2. Bonilha HS, Desjardins M, Garand KL, et al. Parameters and scales used to assess and report findings from stroboscopy: a systematic review. J Voice. 2017

        • De Bodt MS
        • Wuyts FL
        • Van de Heyning PH
        • et al.
        Test-retest study of the GRBAS scale: influence of experience and professional background on perceptual rating of voice quality.
        J Voice. 1997; 11: 74-80