Patient versus partner perception of voice handicap.

The primary purpose of this study was to compare patient's and communication partner's perceptions of handicap secondary to dysphonia. A secondary purpose was to compare patient health-related quality of life (HRQOL) to that of speakers with normal voice. Participants were 20 adults (mean age=69.15 years) with dysphonia and their communication partners. Patients completed the Voice Handicap Index (VHI), a questionnaire of self-perceived voice handicap, and the Short-Form 36 (SF-36), a general health questionnaire. Partners completed the Voice Handicap Index-Partner (VHI-P), a questionnaire derived from the VHI for this pilot study, to gauge partner perception of voice handicap. Patients in this study viewed themselves as only moderately handicapped by their dysphonia and their partners were in close agreement. Patients and their partners were also in close agreement on each of three VHI subscales (physical, functional, and emotional), and in all cases the physical domain was perceived by both patients and their partners to be most handicapped. Patients had lower SF-36 mean scores than those of persons with normal voice from the general U.S. population on scales assessing physical functioning, physical role, general health, vitality, social functioning, emotional role, and mental health. The results of this study are consistent with previous studies examining patient-partner agreement, which consider proxy ratings to be a useful alternative or collaborative source of patient's self-perception. Further research regarding the reliability of patient and partner agreement is necessary to most effectively assess and manage patients with dysphonia.

The effect of speaking context on elicitation of habitual pitch.

The purpose of this study was to investigate if there was an effect of speaking context on the elicitation of habitual pitch [speaking fundamental frequency (SFF)]. Six simulated speaking contexts were created (speaking during a voice evaluation, speaking in public, speaking to a peer, speaking to a superior, speaking to a subordinate, and speaking to a parent or spouse), and the SFF for 30 adult women with normal voice was compared across these contexts. A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed a statistically significant (P < 0.001) effect of simulated speaking context on SFF, with post hoc analyses indicating a statistically significant difference in SFF while "speaking to a superior" (P < 0.001) and "speaking to a subordinate" (P < 0.001). Possible reasons for an effect of speaking context are discussed. Also, the implications of the use of varied speaking contexts when eliciting SFF are discussed, as is the possibility of an effect of speaking context on the elicitation of other clinically useful voice parameters.