ArticleAmerican journal of speech-language pathology2024
The Effect of Rating Method on Reliability of Judgments of Strain Across Populations.
Article in American journal of speech-language pathology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Acoustic Metrics of the Strain Dimension of Voice Quality: A Scoping Review.Journal of voice : official journal of the Voice Foundation · 2025Review
- Minimal Detectable Change of Experienced and Novice Listeners' Ratings of Overall Severity of Voice Quality in Adductor Laryngeal Dystonia.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2025Article
- Patient-Perceived Vocal Effort Immediately Following Voice Tasks in Adductor Laryngeal Dystonia (ADLD).Journal of voice : official journal of the Voice Foundation · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeVariability in auditory-perceptual ratings of voice limits their utility, with the poorest reliability often noted for vocal strain. The purpose of this study was to determine whether an experimental method, called visual sort and rate (VSR), promoted stronger rater reliability than visual analog scale (VAS), for ratings of strain in two clinical populations: adductor laryngeal dystonia (ADLD) and vocal hyperfunction (VH).
methodConnected speech samples from speakers with ADLD and VH as well as age- and sex-matched controls were selected from a database. Fifteen inexperienced listeners rated strain for two speaker sets (25 ADLD speakers and five controls; 25 VH speakers and five controls) across four rating blocks: VAS-ADLD, VSR-ADLD, VAS-VH, and VSR-VH. For the VAS task, listeners rated each speaker for strain using a vertically oriented 100-mm VAS. For the VSR task, stimuli were distributed into sets of samples with a range of severities in each set. Listeners sorted and ranked samples for strain within each set, and final ratings were captured on a vertically oriented 100-mm VAS. Intrarater reliability (Pearson's
resultsIntrarater reliability of strain was significantly stronger when listeners used VSR compared to VAS; listeners also showed significantly better intrarater reliability in ADLD than VH. Listeners demonstrated significantly less interrater variability (better reliability) when using VSR compared to VAS. No significant effect of population or interactions was found between listeners for measures of interrater variability.
conclusionsVSR increases intrarater reliability for ratings of vocal strain in speakers with VH and ADLD. VSR decreases variability of auditory-perceptual judgments of strain between inexperienced listeners in these clinical populations. Future research should determine whether benefits of VSR extend to voice clinicians and/or clinical settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.