Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 247

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Three Treatments for Teachers With Voice Disorders: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Roy, Nelson, Weinrich, Barbara, Gray, Steven D., Tanner, Kristine, Stemple, Joseph C., Sapienza, Christine M.·2003·Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research
DOI 10.1044/1092-4388(2003/053

Abstract

Voice problems are a common occupational hazard of teaching school, yet few studies exist that have objectively evaluated treatment approaches aimed at rehabilitating these occupation-related voice disorders. This randomized clinical trial used patient-based treatment outcome measures to evaluate the effectiveness of three treatment programs. Sixty-four teachers with voice disorders were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 treatment groups: voice amplification using the ChatterVox portable amplifier (VA;n= 25), resonance therapy (RT;n= 19), and respiratory muscle training (RMT;n= 20). Before and after a 6-week treatment phase, all teachers completed (a) the Voice Handicap Index (VHI; B. H. Jacobson et al., 1997), an instrument designed to appraise the self-perceived psychosocial consequences of voice disorders, and (b) a voice severity self-rating scale. Both intention-to-treat and as-treated analyses revealed that only the VA and RT groups reported significant reductions in mean VHI scores and in voice severity selfratings following treatment. Furthermore, results from a posttreatment questionnaire regarding the perceived benefits of treatment showed that compared to RT and RMT, teachers in the VA group reported significantly more overall voice improvement, greater vocal clarity, and greater ease of speaking and singing voice following treatment. These findings replicate previous results from an earlier clinical trial confirming the efficacy of VA and provide new evidence to support RT as an effective treatment alternative for voice problems in teachers. The results are discussed in the context of uneven levels of self-reported compliance and disparate dropout rates among the treatment groups.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1044/1092-4388(2003/053)

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 247

Metadata

Authors
Roy, N., Weinrich, B., Gray, S. D., Tanner, K., Stemple, J. C., & Sapienza, C. M.
Venue
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research
Published
2003-06
Volume
46
Issue
3
Pages
670-688
ISSN
  • 1092-4388 (ISSN-L)
  • 1558-9102
DOI
10.1044/1092-4388(2003/053
OpenAlex
W2038597883
Cited by
247
References
0
FWCI
3.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Three Treatments for Teachers With Voice Disorders: A Randomized Clinical Trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1044/1092-4388(2003/053
The paper
Roy, N., Weinrich, B., Gray, S. D., Tanner, K., Stemple, J. C., & Sapienza, C. M. (2003). Three Treatments for Teachers With Voice Disorders: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2003/053

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.