Journal of voice : official journal of the Voice Foundation · 2026
Effectiveness of an Eclectic Voice Therapy Approach and Vocal Function Exercise (VFE)-Normative Range Cutoff Value Comparisons.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Mahalingam Shenbagavalli, Boominathan Prakash, Arunachalam Ravikumar, Venkatesh Lakshmi
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: The Comprehensive Voice Habilitation Program (CVHP) is a structured and systematic eclectic voice therapy program combining direct and indirect therapy techniques for hyperfunctional voice disorders. This study compared multidimensional outcomes of CVHP and Vocal Function Exercise (VFE) using normative range cutoff values.
METHODS: This study is a secondary analysis of outcome data obtained from a randomized controlled trial conducted by Mahalingam et al.1 Sixty participants with hyperfunctional voice disorders were randomly assigned to two therapy programs: Group I (30 in CVHP) and Group II (30 in VFE), twice a week, 30-minute sessions for a period of 6 weeks. Normative data from literature (matched for the population-Tamil-speaking, instrumentation, and lab setup) were used to compare pre- and post-therapy outcomes for each of the parameters of interest-videostroboscopy, acoustic analysis, perceptual measures, self-reported vocal symptoms, and subjective self-percept measures. A chi-square test was performed to compare significant differences in outcomes between the groups.
RESULTS: Normative values were set as targets of therapy in both groups, and most participants attained post-therapy in several parameters. More number of participants in the CVHP group showed complete recovery of the lesion, and the post-therapy values of parameters such as cepstral measures (CPPv-P = 0.00; CPPSv-P = 0.04), harmonics-to-noise ratio, dysphonia severity index, dynamic range in speaking voice, frequency-related measures, perceptual measures of voice-overall grade (P = 0.02), asthenia (A) (p=0.03) and strain (S) (P = 0.01), reduction in self-reported symptoms, all domains of voice disorder outcome profile (V-DOP), and Vocal Fatigue Index (VFI-T) factor I- (P = 0.04); factor III (P = 0.02) were within the expected target normative range. For intensity-related parameters, the numbers were almost similar in both groups.
CONCLUSIONS: CVHP was found beneficial to treat hyperfunctional voice disorders. However, assessing long-term outcomes will be of interest in the future.
METHODS: This study is a secondary analysis of outcome data obtained from a randomized controlled trial conducted by Mahalingam et al.1 Sixty participants with hyperfunctional voice disorders were randomly assigned to two therapy programs: Group I (30 in CVHP) and Group II (30 in VFE), twice a week, 30-minute sessions for a period of 6 weeks. Normative data from literature (matched for the population-Tamil-speaking, instrumentation, and lab setup) were used to compare pre- and post-therapy outcomes for each of the parameters of interest-videostroboscopy, acoustic analysis, perceptual measures, self-reported vocal symptoms, and subjective self-percept measures. A chi-square test was performed to compare significant differences in outcomes between the groups.
RESULTS: Normative values were set as targets of therapy in both groups, and most participants attained post-therapy in several parameters. More number of participants in the CVHP group showed complete recovery of the lesion, and the post-therapy values of parameters such as cepstral measures (CPPv-P = 0.00; CPPSv-P = 0.04), harmonics-to-noise ratio, dysphonia severity index, dynamic range in speaking voice, frequency-related measures, perceptual measures of voice-overall grade (P = 0.02), asthenia (A) (p=0.03) and strain (S) (P = 0.01), reduction in self-reported symptoms, all domains of voice disorder outcome profile (V-DOP), and Vocal Fatigue Index (VFI-T) factor I- (P = 0.04); factor III (P = 0.02) were within the expected target normative range. For intensity-related parameters, the numbers were almost similar in both groups.
CONCLUSIONS: CVHP was found beneficial to treat hyperfunctional voice disorders. However, assessing long-term outcomes will be of interest in the future.