Abstract
Objective
The primary aim of this study was to examine the effect of the videolaryngostroboscopic
auditory signal on videolaryngostroboscopy (VLS) ratings and interpretation in normophonic
and dysphonic speakers.
Study Design
Prospective repeated measures design
Method
Eight speech-language pathologists evaluated rigid VLS exams obtained from 12 dysphonic
speakers with vocal fold pathology and 4 normophonic speakers with normal VLS exams.
VLS exams were evaluated with the auditory signal present and absent with a washout
period between rating sessions. VLS measures were obtained using the Voice-vibratory
Assessment of Laryngeal Imaging (VALI) and a 100mm visual analog scale (VAS). The
effects of the auditory signal and its interaction with voice quality severity on
9 VLS ratings, diagnostic billing codes, and treatment recommendations were examined.
Results
There was no effect of auditory information on VLS measures or overall severity of
laryngeal function evaluated using the VAS (ps > 0.05). There was a main effect of auditory information and a significant interaction
with voice quality severity for only one VLS measure (non-vibrating portion-left)
evaluated using the VALI (P = 0.05). Post-hoc analysis for this rating showed significant increases (t-test adjusted P < 0.05) when voice quality severity was moderate-severe (M = 4.8%; SD = 1.65%) and auditory information was present. Agreement in individual clinician's
selection of diagnostic codes (73%) and treatment recommendations (65.6%) when auditory
cues were present and absent was moderate to high.
Conclusion
The presence of the videolaryngostroboscopic auditory signal had a minimal effect
on VLS ratings, treatment recommendations, or diagnostic billing codes.
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 accessOne-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:
Subscribe to Journal of VoiceAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
REFERENCES
ASHA Practice Portal. Available at: https://www.asha.org/PRPSpecificTopic.aspx?folderid=8589942600§ion=Overview.
- Recommended Protocols for Instrumental Assessment of Voice: American Speech-Language-Hearing Association Expert Panel to Develop a Protocol for Instrumental Assessment of Vocal Function.Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2018; 27: 887-905
- Flexible Laryngoscopy: A Comparison of Fiber Optic and Distal Chip Technologies. Part 1: Vocal Fold Masses.J Voice. 2008; 22: 746-750
- Current role of stroboscopy in laryngeal imaging.Curr Opin Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2012; 20: 429-436
- The diagnostic role of high-speed vocal fold vibratory imaging.J Voice. 2013; 27: 627-631
- Diagnostic accuracy of history, laryngoscopy, and stroboscopy.Laryngoscope. 2013; 123: 215-219
- Stroboscopy as a research instrument: development of a perceptual evaluation tool.Laryngoscope. 2005; 115: 423-428
- Rater methodology for stroboscopy: a systematic review.J Voice. 2015; 29: 101-108
- The interrater reliability of stroboscopy evaluations.J Voice. 2012; 26 (812.e1-10)
- Parameters and Scales Used to Assess and Report Findings From Stroboscopy: A Systematic Review.J Voice. 2018; 32: 734-755
- Does the accuracy of case history affect interpretation of videolaryngostroboscopic exams?.The Laryngoscope. 2019; (Published online May 24lary.28081)
- Examiner bias: influence of patient history on perceptual ratings of videostroboscopy.J Voice. 1995; 9: 95-105
Eadie T, Sroka A, Wright DR, et al. Does Knowledge of Medical Diagnosis Bias Auditory-Perceptual Judgments of Dysphonia?(Report). 2011;25:420.
- Does the Accuracy of Medical Diagnoses Affect Novice Listeners’ Auditory-Perceptual Judgments of Dysphonia Severity?.J Voice. 2020; 34: 197-207
- Information Bias in Endoscopic Assessment.Am J Gastroenterol. 2007; 102: 1585-1587
- Impact of a clinical scenario on accuracy of electrocardiogram interpretation.J Gen Intern Med. 1999; 14: 126-129
- Believing is seeing: the influence of a diagnostic hypothesis on the interpretation of clinical features.Acad Med. 2002; 77: S67-S69
- Influence of predicting the diagnosis from history on the accuracy of physical examination.Adv Med Educ Pract. 2015; 6: 143-148
- A Multi-Media, Computer-Based Method for Stroboscopy Rating Training.J Voice. 1998; 12: 513-526
- Reliability of laryngostroboscopic evaluation on lesion size and glottal configuration: A revisit.The Laryngoscope. 2014; 124: 1638-1644
- Voice-Vibratory Assessment With Laryngeal Imaging (VALI) Form: Reliability of Rating Stroboscopy and High-speed Videoendoscopy.J Voice. 2017; 31: 513.e1-513.e14
- Instruction manual: Stroboscopy systems and components.2008 (Montvale, NJ)
- Differences between flexible and rigid endoscopy in assessing the posterior glottic chink.J Voice. 2011; 25: 591-595
- Accuracy of flexible versus rigid laryngoscopic photo-documentation in the diagnosis of early glottic cancer.JLO. 2013; 127: 890-896
- The predictive value of videostroboscopy in the assessment of premalignant lesions and early glottis cancers..Otolaryngol Pol. 2017; 71: 14-18
- Correlation Between the Basic Video Laryngostroboscopic Parameters and Multidimensional Voice Measurements.J Voice. 2013; 27: 744-752
- Efficacy of Videostroboscopy in the Diagnosis of Voice Disorders.Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1992; 107: 95-100
- Change in diagnosis and treatment following specialty voice evaluation: A national database analysis.Laryngoscope. 2015; 125: 1660-1666
- Aerodynamic and Stroboscopic Findings before and after Microlaryngeal Phonosurgery.J Voice. 1994; 8: 186-194
- Consensus auditory-perceptual evaluation of voice: development of a standardized clinical protocol.Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2009; 18: 124-132
- Establishing validity of the Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V).Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2011; 20: 14-22
- Construct validity. Foundations of Clinical Research: Applications to Practice.Prentice Hall Health New Jersey, USA. Published online 2000; : 87-91
- Reliability of clinician-based (GRBAS and CAPE-V) and patient-based (V-RQOL and IPVI) documentation of voice disorders.J Voice. 2007; 21: 576-590
- Delayed otolaryngology referral for voice disorders increases health care costs..Am J Med. 2015; 128 (426.e11-18)
- Resident Education in Laryngeal Stroboscopy and Perceptual Voice Evaluation: An Assessment.J Voice. Published online 2018;
- An in vivo model of external superior laryngeal nerve paralysis.Laryngoscope. 2009; 119: `1017-1032
- Voice, Speech, and Laryngeal Features of Primary Sjögren's Syndrome.Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2014; 123: 778-785
- Treatment Outcomes of Bilateral Medialization Thyroplasty for Presbylaryngis.J Voice. 2019; 33: 40-44
IBM Corp. Released 2017. IBM SPSS Statistics for Mac, Version 26.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.
- Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability.Psychological Bulletin. 1979; 86: 420-428
- Computing Inter-Rater Reliability for Observational Data: An Overview and Tutorial.Tutor Quant Methods Psychol. 2012; 8: 23-34
- The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data.Biometrics. 1977; 33: 159-174
Roy N, Barkmeier-Kraemer J, Eadie T, et al. Evidence-Based Clinical Voice Assessment: A Systematic Review. 2013;22:212-226.
- MBS Measurement Tool for Swallow Impairment—MBSImp: Establishing a Standard.Dysphagia. 2008; 23: 392-405
- Comparison of High-Speed Digital Imaging with Stroboscopy for Laryngeal Imaging of Glottal Disorders.Ann Oto Rhinol Larygol. 2008; : 413-424https://doi.org/10.1177/000348940811700603
Article info
Publication history
Published online: June 08, 2021
Accepted:
April 27,
2021
Publication stage
In Press Corrected ProofFootnotes
Grant information: This publication resulted (in part) from research supported by The American Speech-Language-Hearing Foundation New Century Doctoral Scholarship (Recipient Cara Sauder).
Note: Portions of this paper were presented as a poster presentation at Fall Voice Virtual Conference, October 23-24, 2020
Level of Evidence: Level 2
Identification
Copyright
© 2021 The Voice Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
