Research Article|Articles in Press

Prospective Determination of Normative Value of the Singing Voice Handicap Index-10 (SVHI-10)

  • Grant E. Gochman
    Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Voice and Swallowing Center, University of California, San Francisco, California
    Search for articles by this author
  • VyVy N. Young
    Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Voice and Swallowing Center, University of California, San Francisco, California
    Search for articles by this author
  • Sarah L. Schneider
    Address correspondence and reprint requests to: Sarah L. Schneider, University of California, 2330 Post St, #500, San Francisco, CA 94115.
    Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Voice and Swallowing Center, University of California, San Francisco, California
    Search for articles by this author



      To prospectively establish a normative value for the validated Singing Voice Handicap Index-10 (SVHI-10) patient reported outcome measure (PROM).

      Study Design

      Prospective cross-sectional study.


      Adult singers without voice complaints were prospectively invited to complete a demographics questionnaire followed by the SVHI-10. Participants were excluded if they had sought medical care for voice changes within the last year or currently had throat problems. Statistical analysis was completed to establish a normative value and the distribution of demographics by singing experience, primary genre, and gender.


      One hundred forty-nine healthy participants from diverse backgrounds (including singing, financial, educational, and geographic location) successfully completed the SVHI-10. The mean (SD) score of this cohort was 9.13 (5.15). We defined a normative value as two standard deviations above the mean: 19.43 There was no difference in SVHI-10 score in different age groups.


      A normative value for the SVHI-10 questionnaire has been missing from the current literature and will be of great utility both in clinical practice and research. In previous research, singers have been shown to be more perceptive to quality change in their singing voices, which may be why the normative score is higher than one may expect. A SVHI-10 score ≥20 should be considered abnormal.

      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


        • Hogikyan ND
        • Sethuraman G.
        Validation of an instrument to measure voice-related quality of life (V-RQOL).
        J Voice. 1999; 13: 557-569
        • Murry T
        • Medrado R
        • Hogikyan ND
        • et al.
        The relationship between ratings of voice quality and quality of life measures.
        J Voice. 2004; 18: 183-192
        • Jacobson BH
        • Johnson A
        • Grywalski C
        • et al.
        The Voice Handicap Index (VHI).
        Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 1997; 6: 66-70
        • Rosen CA
        • Murry T.
        Voice handicap index in singers.
        J Voice. 2000; 14: 370-377
        • Cohen SM
        • Jacobson BH
        • Garrett CG
        • et al.
        Creation and validation of the singing voice handicap index.
        Ann Otol, Rhinol Laryngol. 2007; 116: 402-406
        • Sobol M
        • Sielska-Badurek EM
        • Osuch-Wójcikiewicz E.
        Normative values for singing voice handicap index – systematic review and meta-analysis.
        Braz J Otorhinolaryngol. 2020; 86: 497-501
        • Castelblanco L
        • Habib M
        • Stein DJ
        • et al.
        Singing voice handicap and videostrobolaryngoscopy in healthy professional singers.
        J Voice. 2014; 28: 608-613
        • Rosen C
        • Lee A
        • Osborne J
        • et al.
        Development and validation of the voice handicap index-10.
        Laryngoscope. 2004; 114: 1549-1556
        • Altman DG
        • Bland JM.
        Standard deviations and standard errors.
        BMJ. 2005; 331: 903
        • Lee DK
        • In J
        • Lee S.
        Standard deviation and standard error of the mean.
        Korean J Anesthesiol. 2015; 68: 220-223
        • Cohen SM
        • Statham M
        • Rosen CA
        • et al.
        Development and validation of the Singing Voice Handicap-10.
        Laryngoscope. 2009; 119: 1864-1869
        • Renk E
        • Sulica L
        • Grossman C
        • et al.
        VHI-10 and SVHI-10 differences in singers’ self-perception of dysphonia severity.
        J Voice. 2017; 31: 383.e1-383.e4
        • Sobol M
        • Sielska-Badurek EM
        • Rzepakowska A
        • et al.
        Normative value of SVHI-10. systematic review and meta-analysis.
        J Voice. 2020; 34: 808.e25-808.e28
        • Rangarajan A
        • Santhanam DP
        • Selvaraj JL.
        Translation and validation of tamil version of singing voice handicap index-10 (TSVHI-10).
        J Voice. 2020; 34: 158.e9-158.e16
        • Gunjawate DR
        • Aithal U V
        • Bellur R.
        Adaptation and validation of the kannada singing voice handicap index-10.
        J Voice. 2019; 33: 582.e1-582.e4
        • Arffa R
        • Krishna P
        • Gartner-Schmidt J
        • et al.
        Normative values for the voice handicap index-10.
        J Voice. 2011; 26: 462-465
        • Phyland DJ
        • Oates J
        • Greenwood KM.
        Self-reported voice problems among three groups of professional singers.
        J Voice. 1999; 13: 602-611
        • Panda M
        • Staton LJ
        • Chen I
        • et al.
        The influence of discordance in pain assessment on the functional status of patients with chronic nonmalignant pain.
        Am J Med Sci. 2006; 332: 18-23
        • Guru V
        • Dubinsky I.
        The patient vs. caregiver perception of acute pain in the emergency department.
        J Emerg Med. 2000; 18: 7-12
        • Marquié L
        • Raufaste E
        • Lauque D
        • et al.
        Pain rating by patients and physicians: evidence of systematic pain miscalibration.
        Pain. 2003; 102 (Available at:) (Accessed February 7, 2023): 289-296
        • Cook CE.
        Clinimetrics Corner: The Minimal Clinically Important Change Score (MCID): A necessary pretense.
        J Manual Manipulat Ther. 2008; 16: 82E-83E