The Degree of Change and Relationship in Self-perceived Handicap and Acoustic Voice Quality Associated With Voice Therapy



      Outcome measures describing acoustic voice quality and self-perceived vocal handicap are commonly used in clinical voice practice. Previous reports of the relationship between acoustic and self-perceived measures have found only limited associations, but it is unclear if acoustic measures associated with voice quality and self-perceived voice handicap change in a similar manner over the course of voice treatment. The current study, therefore, considered the relationship between the degree of change in Acoustic Voice Quality Index (AVQI) and Voice Handicap Index (VHI-30 and VHI-10) in dysphonic patients receiving treatment in a private practice voice clinic.


      Data were collected retrospectively from patient records of a private practice voice clinic over 80 consecutive months. For each patient, their voice disorder diagnosis, age, and biological sex were collected as well as pre-and post-treatment measures of the AVQI and VHI-30 or VHI-10 depending on which version was used. Correlations were calculated between the AVQI and VHI-30 and the AVQI and VHI-10 before and after treatment as well as for the percentage change of AVQI and VHI-30/VHI-10. Friedman and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to determine the pre-and post-treatment effect and group differences respectively.


      Seventy-eight patients were included in the analyses. The scores of the AVQI (χ²[1] = 24.01, P < 0.001), VHI-30 (χ²[1] = 18.00, P < 0.001), and VHI-10 (χ²[1] = 38.35, P < 0.001) all improved significantly after treatment. However, correlations between the AVQI and VHI-30, and the AVQI and VHI-10 were all non-significant, except for a moderate correlation between the AVQI and VHI-10 before treatment (r[43] = 0.31, P = 0.04). The percentage change of the AVQI and the VHI-30/VHI-10 did not correlate significantly.


      Voice therapy significantly improved acoustic and self-perceived vocal outcome measures. However, there was no significant relationship between these measures before or after treatment, nor was there a relationship in their degree of change. Results support the notion that VHI and AVQI measure unique constructs and that voice therapy can have a positive impact on both.

      Key Words


      VHI-30 (Voice Handicap Index), VHI-10 (Voice Handicap Index-10), AVQI (Acoustic Voice Quality Index), HNR (Harmonics-to-noise ratio), NHR (Noise-to-harmonics ratio), MPT (Maximum phonation time), DSI (Dysphonia Severity Index), CPP (Cepstral peak prominence), SLP (Speech-language pathologist), MML (Mid-membranous lesions), NSD (Non-specific dysphonia), Atr/Bow (Atrophy or bowing), UVFP (Unilateral vocal fold paralysis), MTD (Muscle tension dysphonia)
      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


        • Desjardins M
        • Halstead L
        • Cooke M
        • et al.
        A systematic review of voice therapy: what “effectiveness” really implies.
        J Voice. 2017; 31: 392.e13-392.e32
        • LeBorgne WDL
        • Donahue EN.
        Voice therapy as primary treatment of vocal fold pathology.
        Otolaryngol Clin North Am. 2019; 52: 649-656
        • Jacobson BH
        • Johnson A
        • Grywalski C
        • et al.
        The voice handicap index (VHI): development and validation.
        Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 1997; 6: 66-70
        • Francis DO
        • Daniero JJ
        • Hovis KL
        • et al.
        Voice-related patient-reported outcome measures: a systematic review of instrument development and validation.
        J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2017; 60: 62-88
        • Bouwers F
        • Dikkers FG.
        A retrospective study concerning the psychosocial impact of voice disorders: voice handicap index change in patients with benign voice disorders after treatment (measured with the dutch version of the VHI).
        J Voice. 2009; 23: 218-224
        • Rosen CA
        • Murry T
        • Zinn A
        • et al.
        Voice handicap index change following treatment of voice disorders.
        J Voice. 2000; 14: 619-623
        • Rosen CA
        • Lee AS
        • Osborne J
        • et al.
        Development and validation of the voice handicap index-10.
        Laryngoscope. 2004; 114: 1549-1556
        • Arffa RE
        • Krishna P
        • Gartner-Schmidt J
        • et al.
        Normative values for the voice handicap index-10.
        J Voice. 2012; 26: 462-465
        • Misono S
        • Yueh B
        • Stockness AN
        • et al.
        Minimal important difference in voice handicap index–10.
        JAMA Otolaryngol Neck Surg. 2017; 143: 1098-1103
        • Hogikyan ND
        • Rosen CA
        • Arbor A.
        A review of outcome measurements for voice disorders.
        Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2002; 126: 562-572
        • Maryn Y
        • Corthals P
        • Van Cauwenberge P
        • et al.
        Toward improved ecological validity in the acoustic measurement of overall voice quality: combining continuous speech and sustained vowels.
        J Voice. 2010; 24: 540-555 12.014
        • Hosokawa K
        • Barsties v Latoszek B
        • Iwahashi T
        • et al.
        The acoustic voice quality index version 03.01 for the Japanese-speaking Population.
        J Voice. 2019; 33: 125.e1-125.e12
        • Kankare E
        • Barsties V.
        • Latoszek B
        • et al.
        The acoustic voice quality index version 02.02 in the Finnish-speaking population.
        Logoped Phoniatr Vocol. 2019; 45: 49-56 1556332
        • Pommée T
        • Maryn Y
        • Finck C
        • et al.
        Validation of the acoustic voice quality index, version 03.01, in French.
        J Voice. 2018;
        • Maryn Y
        • De Bodt M
        • Roy N.
        The acoustic voice quality index: toward improved treatment outcomes assessment in voice disorders.
        J Commun Disord. 2010; 43: 161-174
        • Zhao EE
        • Nguyen SA
        • Salvador CD
        A meta-analysis of the association between the voice handicap index and objective voice analysis.
        J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2020; 63: 3461-3471
        • Wuyts FL
        • De Bodt MS
        • Molenberghs G
        • et al.
        The dysphonia severity index: an objective measure of vocal quality based on a multiparameter approach.
        J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2000; 43: 796-809
        • Wheeler KM
        • Collins SP
        • Sapienza CM.
        The relationship between VHI scores and specific acoustic measures of mildly disordered voice production.
        J Voice. 2006; 20: 308-317
        • Dehqan A
        • Yadegari F
        • Scherer RC
        • et al.
        Correlation of VHI-30 to acoustic measurements across three common voice disorders.
        J Voice. 2017; 31: 34-40
        • Awan SN
        • Roy N
        • Cohen SM
        Exploring the relationship between spectral and cepstral measures of voice and the voice handicap index (VHI).
        J Voice. 2014; 28: 430-439 2013.12.008
        • Faham M
        • Laukkanen AM
        • Ikävalko T
        • et al.
        Acoustic voice quality index as a potential tool for voice screening.
        J Voice. 2021; 35: 226-232
        • Valentino WL
        • Park J
        • Alnouri G
        • et al.
        Diagnostic value of acoustic and aerodynamic measurements in vocal fold movement disorders and their correlation with laryngeal electromyography and voice handicap index.
        J Voice. 2021; 35: 497.e1-497.e4
        • Englert M
        • Barsties V.
        • Latoszek B
        Exploring the validity of acoustic measurements and other voice assessments.
        J Voice. 2021;
        • Barsties v. Latoszek B
        • Kim GH
        • Delgado Hernández J
        • et al.
        The validity of the acoustic breathiness index in the evaluation of breathy voice quality: a meta-analysis.
        Clin Otolaryngol. 2021; 46: 31-40
        • Kiagiadaki DE
        • Chimona TS
        • Chlouverakis GI
        • et al.
        Evaluating the outcome of phonosurgery: comparing the role of VHI and VoiSS questionnaires in the Greek language.
        J Voice. 2012; 26: 372-377
        • Muslih I
        • Herawati S
        • Pawarti DR.
        Association between voice handicap index and praat voice analysis in patients with benign vocal cord lesion before and after microscopic laryngeal surgery.
        Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2019; 71: 482-488
        • Ziwei Y
        • Zheng P
        • Pin D.
        Multiparameter voice assessment for voice disorder patients: a correlation analysis between objective and subjective parameters.
        J Voice. 2014; 28: 770-774
        • Zhuge P
        • You H
        • Wang H
        • et al.
        An analysis of the effects of voice therapy on patients with early vocal fold polyps.
        J Voice. 2016; 30: 698-704
        • Gillespie AI
        • Gooding W
        • Rosen C
        • et al.
        Correlation of VHI-10 to voice laboratory measurements across five common voice disorders.
        J Voice. 2014; 28: 440-448
        • Dejonckere PH.
        Assessment of voice and respiratory function.
        in: Remacle M Eckel HE Surgery of Larynx and Trachea. Springer-Verlag, Berlin2010: 11-26
        • Barsties B
        • De Bodt M.
        Assessment of voice quality: current state-of-the-art.
        Auris Nasus Larynx. 2015; 42: 183-188
        • Thijs Z
        • Knickerbocker K
        • Watts CR.
        Epidemiological patterns and treatment outcomes in a private practice community voice clinic.
        J Voice. 2020; : 11-14
        • Watts CR
        • Knickerbocker K.
        Characteristics of a treatment-seeking population in a private practice community voice clinic: an epidemiologic study.
        J Voice. 2019; 33: 429-434
        • Ebersole B
        • Soni RS
        • Moran K
        • et al.
        The influence of occupation on self-perceived vocal problems in patients with voice complaints.
        J Voice. 2018; 32: 673-680
        • Salturk Z
        • Kumral TL
        • Aydoğdu I
        • et al.
        Psychological effects of dysphonia in voice professionals.
        Laryngoscope. 2015; 125: 1908-1910
        • Behrman A
        • Sulica L
        • He T.
        Factors predicting patient perception of dysphonia caused by benign vocal fold lesions.
        Laryngoscope. 2004; 114: 1693-1700
        • Deary IJ
        • Wilson JA
        • Carding PN
        • et al.
        The dysphonic voice heard by me, you and it: differential associations with personality and psychological distress.
        Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci. 2003; 28: 374-378
        • World Health Organization
        Towards a common language for functioning, disability and health ICF towards a common language for functioning, disability and health: ICF the international classification of functioning.
        Disability and Health. 2002; (Accessed at: August 3, 2020. Accessed from: