Добавил:
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз: Предмет: Файл:
Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_4506_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
Скачиваний:
0
Добавлен:
31.08.2026
Размер:
34 Мб
Скачать
166 The Voice and Voice Therapy
auditory-perceptual assessments with medical history enabled SLPs to identify 86% of medi­cally urgent voice disorders, underscoring the importance of comprehensive evaluations. This highlights the need for further research to pinpoint critical historical details and speech tasks that effectively distinguish between urgent and nonurgent voice disorders. This insight is crucial for SLPs in clinical settings, emphasizing the role of thorough evaluations in guiding timely referrals to specialists.
Voice-Related Quality of Life
Two basic approaches to quality-of-life measurement in persons with voice disorders are available: generic assessments that provide a summary of overall health-related quality of life, and specific assessments that focus on specific communication-related quality of life. In a survey of diagnostic practices of experienced voice clinicians (Behrman, 2005), 94% responded that communication­related quality-of-life instruments are important for assessment of treatment outcomes, and 81% considered the data from such instruments important in defining overall therapy goals (p. 460).
In general, voice-disordered patients report poor overall health-related quality of life and communication-related quality of life (Cohen et al., 2006). The choice of which instrument to administer is often driven by the clinician’s personal preference and the dynamics of clinical practice. Regardless of which instrument is used, the clinician should be aware that variables such as life events and experiences, personality factors, and the effects of adaptation may influence reported subjective well-being (O’Connor, 2004).
Slavych and colleagues (2021) provide a comprehensive review of instruments for assessing communication-related quality of life in adults with voice disorders (for historical reviews, see also Zraick & Risner, 2008, and Slavych et al., 2013). Table 6–1 lists some of the instruments currently available to clinicians, most of which are psychometrically sound (Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2002; Branski et al., 2010; Franic et al., 2005). Review of Table 6–1 indicates that the available scales can be grouped and categorized using criteria such as patient age (e.g., adult versus child), rater (e.g., patient versus parent or other proxy), and patient population (e.g., singer versus nonsinger). One important consideration in choosing an instrument is the ability of the patient to read and comprehend its contents. Studies by Zraick and Atcherson (2012) and Stefu and colleagues (2021) of the readability of the scales listed in Table 6–1 revealed that all are at a reading grade level too high for the average English-speaking adult to read with ease and to comprehend. On a related note, it has been reported that web-based consumer information about voice disorders may also be too difficult for the average English-speaking adult to read with ease and to comprehend (Demirci et al., 2024; Dueppen et al., 2019).
Of the instruments listed in Table 6–1, the Voice Handicap Index (VHI) (Jacobson et al.,
1997) is the one most commonly used in clinical practice. Figure 6–5 shows a pre-therapy VHI scale completed by the patient in Case Study 1 at the end of this chapter. In the development study for the VHI, patients self-rated their voice handicap as either mild, moderate, or severe, and researchers correlated those ratings with the total VHI scores. Table 6–2 presents the mean and standard deviation for each category of perceived voice handicap. A self-perceived reduction in voice handicap correlates with a lowering of the total VHI score by 18 points or more, and/ or a lowering of any VHI subscale score by eight points or more (Jacobson et al., 1997). To date, there is no published literature reporting VHI scores for individuals without voice disorders, but it is likely that such individuals would not have a total score of zero.
CHAPTER 6 Evaluation of the Voice 167
TABLE 61. Major Voice-Disordered Quality-of-Life Instruments
Instrument Name and Acronym Developers
Voice Handicap Index (VHI) Jacobson and colleagues (1997)
Voice Handicap Index–10 (VHI-10) Rosen and colleagues (2004)
Voice Handicap Index–Partner (VHI-P) Zraick and colleagues (2007)
Pediatric Voice Handicap Index (pVHI) Zur and colleagues (2007)
Singing Voice Handicap Index (SVHI) Cohen and colleagues (2007)
Vocal Performance Questionnaire (VPQ) Carding and colleagues (1999)
Voice Disability Coping Questionnaire (VDCQ) Epstein and colleagues (2009)
Voice Symptom Scale (VoiSS) Deary and colleagues (2003)
Voice Activity and Participation Profile (VAPP) Ma and Yiu (2001)
Voice-Related Quality of Life (V-RQOL) Hogikyan and Sethuraman (1999)
Pediatric Voice-Related Quality of Life (PVRQOL) Boseley and colleagues (2006)
Voice Outcomes Survey (VOS) Glicklich and colleagues (1999)
Pediatric Voice Outcomes Survey (PVOS) Hartnick (2002)
Pediatric Voice Symptom Questionnaire (PVSQ) Maccarini and colleagues (2013)
Children’s Voice Handicap Index-10 (CVHI-10) Ricci-Macarini and colleagues (2013)
Children’s Voice Handicap Index-10 for Parents (CVHI-10-P)
Ricci-Maccarini and colleagues (2016)
After completing a thorough records review and patient interview, the next step for the clini­cian is to assess each aspect of voice production, with an eye toward determining a differential diagnosis, determining prognosis for change, and formulating a treatment plan. The clinician may use instrumental or noninstrumental approaches to assess the voice. In the noninstrumental approach, one relies on behavioral observation of the patient, examination of the patient’s oral­peripheral mechanisms, auditory-perceptual judgments about various aspects of the voice (e.g., pitch, loudness, quality, respiratory-phonatory control, resonance, effort, etc.), and the patient’s voice-disordered quality of life. In the instrumental approach, one obtains indirect measures of voice production (e.g., visualization of the larynx, acoustic measures of the voice signal, aerody­namic measures of pressure and flow, physiological measurement of laryngeal muscle function, etc.). Each approach has its advantages and limitations, and the clinician must be skilled at using both approaches and must have a clear purpose in using each.
While it may seem that the instrumental approach is less subjective than the noninstrumental approach, it should be noted that a skilled voice clinician could conduct a valid assessment of voice with or without instrumentation. The use of instrumentation does not ensure that results
168
FIGURE 65. Voice Handicap Index (VHI) form. Reprinted with permission from the
Voice Handicap Index: Development and Validation by B. H. Jacobson, A. Johnson, C. Grywalski, A. Silbergleit, G. Jacobson, & M. S. Benninger.
Speech Language Pathology, 6
Language-Hearing Association. All rights reserved.
, 66–70. Copyright 1997 by the American Speech-
continues
American Journal of
FIGURE 65.
continued
169
170 The Voice and Voice Therapy
TABLE 62. Mean Values (SD) for VHI Subscale and Total
Scale Scores as a Function of Self-Perceived Severity
Patient Group
Scale Mild Moderate Severe
Functional 10.07 (1.99) 12.41 (1.38) 18.30 (1.50)
Physical 15.54 (1.97) 18.63 (1.37) 22.78 (1.48)
Emotional 8.08 (2.31) 13.33 (1.61) 20.30 (1.74)
Total 33.69 (5.60) 44.37 (3.88) 61.39 (4.21)
Note: Based on The Voice Handicap Index: Development and Validation by B. H. Jacobson, A. Johnson, C. Grywalski, A. Silbergleit, G. Jacobson, & M. S. Benninger. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 6, 66–70. Copyright 1997 by the American Speech-Language- Hearing Association. All rights reserved.
will be more accurate. In the hands of a well-trained clinician, the use of instrumentation does add important elements of documentation and quantification, which may or may not otherwise be available (see Video 6–1). Nevertheless, one should not rely on instrumentation to strengthen weak powers of observation, modest clinical skills, or lack of knowledge about voice production. If one has mediocre skills, instrumentation alone does not compensate for this weakness. The most important skills are to be able to listen critically and carefully and to analyze objectively.

The Oral-Peripheral Mechanism Examination

Careful assessment of the oral-peripheral mechanism is part of the voice assessment. Although we focus on assessment of the larynx and respiratory systems, examination of the face, oral and nasal cavities, and pharynx is also required.
Video 6–1. Laryngoscopy by trained
clinicians assesses voice production and function. This video shows videolaryngoscopy aiding in diagnosing adductor laryngeal dystonia. Discuss its role in the differential diagnosis.
CHAPTER 6 Evaluation of the Voice 171
Beyond observing obvious problems in breathing, the clinician should note the amount of neck tension. The accessory neck muscles and the supralaryngeal strap muscles in some patients literally stick out like bands as the patient speaks (this is also observed in untrained singers). Often, mandibular restriction is closely associated with neck tension; affected patients speak with clenched teeth, with little or no mandibular movement. Such restricted jaw movement places most of the burden of speech articulation on the tongue, which must make fantastic adjustments to produce the various vowels and diphthongs in connected speech if no cavity-shaping assistance from the mandible is forthcoming. Any excessive elevation or lowering of the larynx as well as the tipping forward of the thyroid cartilage in the production of high pitches should be noted as possible hyperfunctional behavior (Guzman et al., 2013; Lowell et al., 2012). The angle of the thyroid cartilage may be digitally palpated as the patient sings a number of varying pitches; typically, the fingertips feel little discernible change in the thyroid angle as the patient sings up and down a scale. Sometimes, however, the thyroid cartilage can be felt to rock forward slightly in the produc­tion of high pitches, as it sweeps upward to a higher position toward the hyoid bone. One should gently move the larynx manually from side to side to note the degree of tension with which the strap muscles of the neck hold the larynx in place. We also ask patients to move their larynx manually from side to side and to observe how fixed it appears compared with the clinician’s own larynx.
The majority of hyperfunctional behaviors associated with voice problems are probably not directly observable from examination of the oral-peripheral mechanism. For example, to determine the extent of the tongue’s impinging on the oropharyngeal space, we would need to rely on oral or nasal laryngoscopy.

Visualization of the Larynx and Related Structures

Visualizing the human larynx and related structures is a cornerstone in diagnosing and treating voice disorders, playing a crucial role in the work of SLPs and ENT physicians. This collabora­tive effort between SLPs and ENTs ensures a comprehensive assessment and treatment plan for individuals with voice disorders. Through various direct and indirect methods, these professionals can diagnose conditions, plan interventions, and monitor therapeutic progress. The choice of visualization technique is influenced by the specific laryngeal condition under investigation, the method’s invasiveness, the detail of visualization required, and the dynamic assessment of vocal fold function during speech or singing.
Direct laryngoscopy, an invasive procedure usually performed under general anesthesia, offers a highly detailed view of the larynx, making it invaluable for diagnosing specific laryngeal condi­tions that require surgical intervention or biopsy, such as laryngeal cancer or vocal fold paralysis. ENT physicians primarily conduct this procedure, given its invasive nature and the need for anesthesia, while SLPs may collaborate in the preoperative and postoperative assessment and rehabilitation. Although direct laryngoscopy provides unparalleled detail, it cannot assess vocal fold function during speech due to the patient’s unconscious state, limiting its utility in evaluating disorders affecting vocal fold vibration during phonation.
In contrast, indirect methods such as mirror laryngoscopy, flexible nasendoscopy, and laryngoscopy with stroboscopic lighting offer noninvasive alternatives for visualizing the larynx, allowing for the dynamic assessment of vocal fold function. Mirror laryngoscopy, the simplest of these techniques, involves using a small angled mirror to view the larynx. This method is
172 The Voice and Voice Therapy
particularly suited for a quick screening of the laryngeal structures and is often used by ENTs and SLPs for initial assessments. However, its utility is limited by the discomfort it may cause and its inability to provide a detailed view of vocal fold movement, making it less suitable for diagnosing conditions like vocal fold nodules or polyps, where detailed visualization of vocal fold vibration is essential.
Flexible nasendoscopy, is performed by passing a fiber-optic nasendoscope through the nasal cavity. It allows SLPs and ENT physicians to observe the vocal folds during speech and singing. This method is ideal for diagnosing a wide range of laryngeal conditions affecting vocal quality, such as laryngitis, vocal fold cysts, spasmodic dysphonia, and Reinke’s edema. Its ability to provide a detailed view of the larynx during dynamic vocal tasks makes it an invaluable tool in the assess­ment and monitoring of voice disorders, facilitating targeted interventions by SLPs. Kendall and Leonard (2010, p. 69) uses the term phonoscopic examination to describe the flexible endoscopic examination of dysphonic patients performed by the voice clinician. This term emphasizes the focus of the exam on understanding the relationship between laryngeal behaviors and the voice. The phonoscopic examination allows the clinician to both see and hear voice production. Figure6–7 lists the speaking tasks typically observed during a phonoscopic examination.
Laryngoscopy with stroboscopic lighting, which employs a rigid or flexible laryngoscope equipped with a stroboscopic light source, is particularly effective for assessing subtle abnormalities in vocal fold vibration. This method is best suited for conditions where detailed analysis of vocal fold vibration is required, such as in cases of vocal fold scarring or presbyphonia. The stroboscopic effect creates a slow-motion view of vocal fold vibration, allowing both ENT physicians and SLPs to assess the vibratory characteristics of the vocal folds in detail. This method is instrumental in diagnosing and guiding the treatment of voice disorders that involve complex vibratory patterns, enabling tailored therapeutic interventions (Zarachi et al., 2023).
Each visualization method brings unique insights into the structure and function of the vocal folds and related areas, aiding voice clinicians in the diagnosis and treatment of voice disorders. While indirect methods like flexible nasendoscopy and stroboscopic laryngoscopy are favored for their ability to assess vocal fold function dynamically and with minimal discomfort, direct laryngoscopy offers unparalleled detail at the cost of invasiveness and limited functionality during speech. The choice of visualization method depends on the clinical needs, patient comfort, and available resources, requiring voice clinicians to carefully consider the benefits and limitations of each approach to select the most appropriate one for their patients. When coupled with the other information, visualization of the larynx has greatly improved our accuracy of diagnosis and set the foundation for successful voice therapy plans.
It is worth noting that indirect laryngoscopy is not the sole province of the physician. Clinicians may employ indirect laryngoscopy (and other laryngeal visualization techniques) in accordance with ASHA’s (2016) Scope of Practice for Clinicians. The American Academy of Otolaryngology Voice and Swallow Committee and ASHA’s Special Interest Group 3 (Voice and Voice Disorders) have published a joint statement regarding the use of laryngoscopy. It states in part that “clinicians with expertise in voice disorders and with specialized training in laryngoscopy are professionals qualified to use this procedure for the purpose of assessing voice production and vocal function” (ASHA, 1998).The ASHA (2004b, 2004c) also published a position statement regarding laryngeal stroboscopy, a technical report on laryngeal stroboscopy (ASHA, 2004c), and a knowledge and skills document for clinicians with respect to vocal tract visualization and imaging (ASHA, 2004b).
hourglass (high frequencies)
M
ild hyperfunction
Small “kissing” nodules at the anterior one-third–
Mild mediolateral compression; normal
anteroposterior compression
posterior two-thirds junction
Mild to moderately decreased bilaterally
Mild at location of the nodules
Normal
area; thick persistent mucus at site of nodules
ventricular/false folds
ParameterDescription Finding
Glottic closure Degree andpattern of closure during a cycle of vibration Moderate posterior gap (low frequencies) and
Supraglottic activity Degree of medial or anteroposterior compression of the
Extent of opening Degree of vocal fold opening when maximally adducted Normal
Vertical level approximation Degree to which both vocal folds are on the same plane Normal
Vocal fold edgeSmoothness andstraightness of medial margins of the
vocal folds
Amplitude of vibration Extent of lateral excursion of the vocal folds Mild to moderately decreased bilaterally
Vocal fold mobility Ability of vocal fold to abduct and adduct Normal
Mucosal wave Should travel from inferior to superior margins of the
in vibration
folds and spread bilaterally
Nonvibrating portion Any portion of the vocal fold(s) that does not participate
ure Open and closed phases should be roughly equal Closed phase mildly dominant
Phase clos
same time
Phase symmetry Degree to which both vocal folds adduct/abduct at the
Periodicity/regularity Degree of similarity of successive cycles of vibration Normal
Overall laryngeal function
Other Anything other than the previously described Moderate erythema and edema in the interarytenoid
FIGURE 66. Laryngostroboscopic findings in a patient with bilateral vocal fold nodules.
173
174 The Voice and Voice Therapy
In summary, the collaborative efforts of SLPs and ENT physicians in utilizing direct and indirect methods of laryngeal visualization play a vital role in the comprehensive assessment and treatment of voice disorders (see Video 6–2). The selection of a specific visualization technique depends on the nature of the laryngeal condition, the level of detail required, and the need to assess vocal fold function dynamically. By carefully choosing the most appropriate method, SLPs and ENTs can ensure accurate diagnosis, effective treatment planning, and successful monitoring of progress in individuals with voice disorders.
Video 6–2. Videolaryngoscopy is shown
as a diagnostic and biofeedback tool. The patient reviews their larynx, understanding techniques for better voice. Grand Rounds: List two reasons for sensing fullness at the larynx.
Figure 6–6 presents the laryngostroboscopic findings in an 11-year-old female cheerleader with small bilateral vocal fold nodules. To document findings, forms such as the Stroboscopy Evaluation Rating Form (Nawka & Konerding, 2012; Poburka, 1999), the Stroboscopy Rating Instrument (Rosen, 2005), and the Voice-Vibratory Assessment with Laryngeal Imaging (Poburka et al., 2017) are sometimes used.

The Clinical Voice Laboratory

Instrumental analysis of voice, as described in this chapter, is common in many voice clinics and other settings. Due to advances in microprocessor technology, computer-based hardware and software systems are becoming more affordable and automated. However, clinical instrumentation, no matter how sophisticated, cannot replace the mind, eyes, and ears of a well-trained clinician. That is, instrumental data must be paired with clinical impressions and auditory-perceptual judg­ments of voice to be used meaningfully.
When instrumentation is utilized, there are principles of calibration, standardization of measurement technique, data interpretation, reliability, hygiene, and examiner training that are fundamental to valid outcomes (Brown et al., 1996; Klein et al., 2000). At a minimum, the clinician should be mindful of the following equipment considerations when obtaining voice recordings for clinical purposes: (a) sound isolation and ambient room noise, (b) microphone
CHAPTER 6 Evaluation of the Voice 17 5
FIGURE 67. Elements of the phonoscopic examination.
Kendall & Leonard (2010),
Reading for My Life: Writings, 1958–2008
choice, (c) sound-level meter choice, (d) cable choice, (e) computer specifications, (f) recording software, and (g) choice of video recorder and monitor (Gerhard & Rosow, 2016; Spielman et al., 2007; Svec & Granqvist, 2010).
Stemple and colleagues (2018) suggest that the clinical utility of instrumental measures can be assessed on four levels of clinical application. Specifically, does the instrumentation (a) identify the existence of a voice problem, (b) assess the severity or stage of progression of the voice problem, (c) identify the differential source of the voice problem, and (d) serve as a primary treatment tool for behavioral modification, biofeedback, or patient education? These questions often guide the choice of instruments used and the recording protocols followed. In the following sections, we describe the types of voice analyses the clinician can conduct using relatively affordable and easy-to-use equipment.

Acoustic Analysis of the Voice

Due to advances in hardware and software technology and an increase in affordability of equipment, acoustic analysis of the voice is becoming increasingly more common in clinical practice (Awan etal., 2023). For acoustic measurements to be valid, they must be able to (a) discriminate the normal from dysphonic voice, (b) correlate positively with the clinician’s auditory-perceptual judg­ments of the voice, and (c) be sufficiently stable to assess change across time (Stemple et al., 2018).
When conducting acoustic analysis of the voice, it is generally a good idea to begin by carefully examining its spectrogram. A spectrogram visually shows the sound wave’s frequency and intensity over time. This graph, called a spectrogram, outlines the voice’s harmonic makeup and how the vocal tract shapes sound. Frequency is shown vertically, time horizontally, and intensity by the trace’s darkness on the graph (Figure 6–8). The lowest band indicates the fundamental frequency, and the bands above show higher frequencies. Darker bands mean more energy. When analyzing a spectrogram, clinicians choose between narrowband and wideband filtering. This choice affects how the sound is processed and displayed. Narrowband filtering offers clear frequency details but
Source
: Information from
, Penguin.