ArticleThe Laryngoscope2026
Ecological Momentary Assessment of Voice & Psychological Factors: Group & Individual Mechanisms.
Article in The Laryngoscope, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trauma-Informed Care for Voice, Airway, and Swallowing Disorders: A Scoping Review.ORL-head and neck nursing : official journal of the Society of Otorhinolaryngology and Head-Neck Nurses · 2026Article
- Ecological Momentary Assessment of Voice & Psychological Factors: Group & Individual Mechanisms.The Laryngoscope · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesCross-sectional associations between voice and psychological factors are known, but changes over time offer opportunities to refine our understanding of their interactions and consider customized treatment options. Study objectives were to measure relationships between voice and psychological factors using ecological momentary assessment and applying (1) group-level time series analysis and (2) group and (3) individual causal modeling to identify key psychological factors relevant for voice outcomes.
methodsAdults (N = 32) with primary muscle tension dysphonia completed multiple assessments daily for 10 days. Measures included items from the Voice Handicap Index-10, voice-adapted perceived present control scale, items from NIH PROMIS and the NIH Toolkit to assess distress, and the Positive and Negative Affect Scale. Group-level time series analysis was conducted using dynamic structural equation modeling; causal analysis utilized the Greedy Fast Causal Inference algorithm.
resultsIn group-level time series analyses, neither perceived control nor distress predicted subsequent timepoint voice handicap scores. In group-level causal modeling, anxiety was causal for voice handicap, but perceived control was not. Individual-level analyses identified various causal factors for voice handicap including perceived control and negative affect, and to a lesser extent, serenity, anxiety, somatic arousal, and stress.
conclusionsGroup-level analyses may obscure important heterogeneity that is identifiable using individual-level causal analyses. For example, perceived control was not identified as predictive or causal for voice handicap at the group level; but was a salient causal factor for voice handicap in some individuals. Causal modeling using intensive longitudinal datasets offers a potential avenue for individualized treatment approaches. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4:
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.