ArticleJournal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR2026
Pediatric Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice Part 2: A Protocol.
Article in Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeAlthough auditory-perceptual voice assessments are crucial for evaluating pediatric voices, no protocol designed for use with children has been established. This study created and validated the Pediatric Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (PAPE-V) protocol for use across childhood. Influence of scale type and speaker demographics on voice rating reliability was considered.
methodTen speech-language pathologists (SLPs) specialized in pediatric voice rated voice samples from 102 children aged 3-17 years with and without diagnosed voice disorders (47% female). SLPs were asked to rate each voice for overall voice quality, breathiness, roughness, strain, pitch, and loudness. Voices were rated twice across two separate sessions, with 20% of voices repeated to allow for the calculation of intrarater reliability. In each session, either visual analog scales (VASs) or Likert scales were utilized (order counterbalanced across raters). Interrater and intrarater reliabilities were compared across rating scales and child demographics using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and Krippendorff's alphas. SLPs' feedback regarding both scale types was also obtained.
resultsInterrater and intrarater reliabilities were high across all conditions. For both scale types, ICCs were highest for overall voice quality (Likert ICC = .97, VAS ICC = .96) and lowest for pitch (Likert ICC = .82, VAS ICC = .78). Interrater reliability was significantly greater for children presenting with voice disorders than for children with healthy voices (
conclusionsThe PAPE-V can be used to perform reliable auditory-perceptual voice assessments in children using either VAS or Likert scales. This protocol constitutes an important step in promoting the reliability and efficiency in pediatric voice assessments.
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.