Disclosure of a communication disorder during a job interview: A theoretical model.

With the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA), the definition of disability was expanded and the terms "speaking, hearing, and communicating" were given status as major life activities. Therefore, any communication disorder which substantially limits these major life activities in the workplace can qualify as a disability under the law. This legal protection means that no employer can ever ask about the presence of a communication disorder, and a job applicant is never required to disclose their communication disorder during the hiring process. However, this right to refrain from disclosure potentially places job applicants in a difficult situation. Applicants can choose to remain silent about their disorder and hopefully avoid hiring discrimination, yet the only way that workplace accommodations can be legally requested is if disclosure of the disability takes place. This disclosure decision-making process is likely complex and dependent upon multiple factors. Aspects such as workplace culture, job duties, severity of symptoms, individual motivations, and characteristics of the communication disorder likely all play a role when weighing the decision to disclose. This article proposes a theoretical model which outlines the factors that might influence the disclosure decision-making process for those with communication disorders before a job interview. Each major component of this decision-making process is highlighted, focusing on which factors might inhibit or foster disclosure within a hiring context. Clinical implications are discussed which can allow speech-language pathologists to assist those who are struggling with this important decision. The article also identifies areas in need of future research.

Employer Reactions to Adductor Spasmodic Dysphonia: Exploring the Influence of Symptom Severity and Disclosure of Diagnosis During a Simulated Telephone Interview.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine the influence of symptom severity and disclosure of adductor spasmodic dysphonia (ADSD) on the perceptions of human resource personnel members (HRPs) during a simulated phone interview. METHOD: One female speaker with ADSD was recorded reading an interview script at two time points: (a) pre-BOTOX injection (severe), and (b) post-BOTOX injection (mild). Thirty-two HRPs evaluated the recording in one of the two conditions via a qualitative structured interview. HRPs gave their recommendations regarding when and how to disclose ADSD. RESULTS: In the mild condition, no HRP perceived that the applicant had a voice disorder. Disclosure was not recommended as often, as an impairment was not initially noticed. However, 15/16 HRPs commented on the applicant's voice in the severe condition, with most suspecting she was a smoker or had lung/throat cancer. Disclosure in the severe condition was recommended more often, as it clarified symptoms that were noted at the outset. CONCLUSIONS: Symptom severity in ADSD influences employer perceptions during the phone interview process. Incorrect assumptions may be made about applicants with severe symptoms, and apparentness of symptoms influences whether or not disclosure is recommended. Results have implications for counseling individuals with ADSD who are navigating the job interview process.

The Effect of Information and Severity on Perception of Speakers With Adductor Spasmodic Dysphonia.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of severity of adductor spasmodic dysphonia (ADSD) and information about it on unfamiliar listeners' attitudes about speakers' personal characteristics, perceived vocal effort, and listener comfort on the basis of ratings of speech recordings. METHOD: Fifteen women with ADSD and 5 controls provided speech samples. Forty-five unfamiliar listeners were randomized into 3 groups. Listeners in Group 1 received no information, listeners in Group 2 were told that some speakers had voice disorders or had no voice concerns, and listeners in Group 3 were provided diagnostic labels for each speaker and information about ADSD. Listeners then rated speech samples for attitudes, perceived vocal effort, and listener comfort. RESULTS: Speakers with ADSD were judged significantly worse than controls for attitudes related to "social desirability" and "intellect." There was no effect of severity on "personality" attributes. However, provision of a diagnostic label resulted in significantly more favorable personality ratings than when no label was provided. Perceived vocal effort and comfort became significantly more negative as ADSD severity increased. Finally, most listener ratings were unaffected by provision of additional information about ADSD. CONCLUSIONS: Listeners' perceptions about speakers with ADSD are difficult to change. Directions for counseling and public education need future study.

The Americans With Disabilities Act and Voice Disorders: Practical Guidelines for Voice Clinicians.

OBJECTIVE: The Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA) resulted in changes to the legal definition of disability and substantially affected how those with voice disorders may qualify for reasonable accommodations under the law. However, there has been little guidance and a lack of awareness about these changes within the voice literature. This article examines the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), the changes made in 2008 (ADAAA), and how the law applies to individuals with voice disorders. STUDY DESIGN: This is a review article. METHODS: The ADA and ADAAA are summarized with a particular focus on individuals with voice disorders. Types of reasonable accommodations within the workplace are suggested, and online resources are provided which outline the disclosure and accommodation process. Practical examples are used to provide guidance for clinicians who may be involved in counseling this clinical population. RESULTS/CONCLUSIONS: Many individuals with voice disorders may not realize that their conditions can be classified as disabilities under the law, entitling them to workplace accommodations and time off to pursue medical treatment. However, disclosure laws such as the right to refrain from mentioning a disability during a job interview may not be protective of individuals with severe voice impairments, as symptoms are often difficult to conceal. Clinical implications and directions for future research are discussed.

Workplace productivity and voice disorders: a cognitive interviewing study on presenteeism in individuals with spasmodic dysphonia.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to obtain initial reactions and suggested modifications to two existing presenteeism scales: the Stanford Presenteeism Scale 6 (SPS-6) and the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire-Specific Health Problem (WPAI-SHP) among a cohort of employed individuals with a focal laryngeal dystonia, spasmodic dysphonia (SD). STUDY DESIGN: The study design is a qualitative study. METHODS: Nine speakers with SD underwent cognitive interviews, during which they were asked to evaluate the relevance of statements and clarity of wording on the SPS-6, the WPAI-SHP, and an additional set of voice-related statements designed by the researchers. Participants were asked to complete the scales, rank order statements in terms of perceived importance, and suggest additional statements of relevance. RESULTS: Although all participants noted that their SD did have an effect on their jobs, there were suggestions for modifying both the WPAI-SHP and the SPS-6. Participants regarded specific voice-related statements that were generated by the researchers to be of greater importance than the majority of the statements on the SPS-6. Minor changes in the wording of the instructions on the WPAI-SHP were recommended. CONCLUSIONS: Presenteeism is an important construct to measure in individuals with a chronic voice disorder such as SD. However, existing presenteeism scales might best be administered in conjunction with additional statements that are more voice related so that clinicians can be made aware of specific difficulties encountered in the workplace.

Inferring speaker attributes in adductor spasmodic dysphonia: ratings from unfamiliar listeners.

PURPOSE: To determine whether unfamiliar listeners' perceptions of speakers with adductor spasmodic dysphonia (ADSD) differ from control speakers on the parameters of relative age, confidence, tearfulness, and vocal effort and are related to speaker-rated vocal effort or voice-specific quality of life. METHOD: Twenty speakers with ADSD (including 6 speakers with ADSD plus tremor) and 20 age- and sex-matched controls provided speech recordings, completed a voice-specific quality-of-life instrument (Voice Handicap Index; Jacobson et al., 1997), and rated their own vocal effort. Twenty listeners evaluated speech samples for relative age, confidence, tearfulness, and vocal effort using rating scales. RESULTS: Listeners judged speakers with ADSD as sounding significantly older, less confident, more tearful, and more effortful than control speakers (p < .01). Increased vocal effort was strongly associated with decreased speaker confidence (rs = .88-.89) and sounding more tearful (rs = .83-.85). Self-rated speaker effort was moderately related (rs = .45-.52) to listener impressions. Listeners' perceptions of confidence and tearfulness were also moderately associated with higher Voice Handicap Index scores (rs = .65-.70). CONCLUSION: Unfamiliar listeners judge speakers with ADSD more negatively than control speakers, with judgments extending beyond typical clinical measures. The results have implications for counseling and understanding the psychosocial effects of ADSD.

Disease-specific self-efficacy in spasmodic dysphonia patients.

OBJECTIVE: Self-efficacy (SE) is an optimistic self-belief that one can perform a novel task. This concept involves empowerment, self-esteem, and adaptation to a stressful situation. SE is a strong predictor of health behaviors. Our objectives were to study SE in spasmodic dysphonia (SD) and to develop a disease-specific SE-SD scale. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective study. SETTING: Academic hospital. SUBJECT AND METHODS: Disease-specific SE-SD items were developed with laryngologists, speech pathologists, and SD patients. These items, General SE Scale, Voice Handicap Index-10 (VHI-10), Consensus Auditory Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V), and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), were administered to SD patients who presented for botulinum toxin injections. RESULTS: One hundred forty-five SD patients (mean age 59.5 ± 13.6 years) had a general SE score (Cronbach's α = 0.894) of 33.4 ± 5.2 out of 40. This was negatively correlated with HADS-A (r = -0.42, P < 0.001) and HADS-D (r = -0.42, P < .001), but not correlated with VHI-10 (r = -0.098, P = .243) and CAPE-V (r = -0.047, P = .57). Factor analysis selected 8 items from the general SE scale and 5 disease-specific SE-SD items to generate a 13-item disease-specific SE-SD scale (Cronbach's α = 0.907). Disease-specific SE-SD score was 42.1 ± 6.9 out of 52 and was negatively correlated with VHI-10 (r = -0.19, P = .005), HADS-A (r = -0.43, P < .001), and HADS-D (r = -0.57, P < .001), but not correlated with CAPE-V (r = -0.024, P = .60). CONCLUSION: SD patients established on botulinum toxin injections have high degrees of general and disease-specific SE. Patients with higher SE-SD demonstrate lower vocal handicap and lower levels of anxiety and depression. A 13-item disease-specific SE-SD scale has been developed.