The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Perceptual Evaluation of Voice Quality: Review, Tutorial, and a Framework for Future Research
Abstract
The reliability of listeners’ ratings of voice quality is a central issue in voice research because of the clinical primacy of such ratings and because they are the standard against which other measures are evaluated. However, an extensive literature review indicates that both intrarater and interrater reliability fluctuate greatly from study to study. Further, our own data indicate that ratings of vocal roughness vary widely across individual clinicians, with a single voice often receiving nearly the full range of possible ratings. No model or theoretical framework currently exists to explain these variations, although such a model might guide development of efficient, valid, and standardized clinical protocols for voice evaluation. We propose a theoretical framework that attributes variability in ratings to several sources (including listeners’ backgrounds and biases, the task used to gather ratings, interactions between listeners and tasks, and random error). This framework may guide development of new clinical voice and speech evaluation protocols, ultimately leading to more reliable perceptual ratings and a better understanding of the perceptual qualities of pathological voices.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
Cites
Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability.
Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.420 · Cited by 24,532
Estimation of the reliability of ratings.
Ebel, R. L. (1951) · Psychometrika · doi:10.1007/bf02288803 · Cited by 976
Cited by
Validation of an instrument to measure voice-related quality of life (V-RQOL)
Hogikyan, N. D., & Sethuraman, G. (1999) · Journal of Voice · doi:10.1016/s0892-1997(99)80010-1 · Cited by 1,143
Wuyts, F. L., Bodt, M. S. D., Molenberghs, G., Remacle, M., Heylen, L., Millet, B., Lierde, K. V., Raes, J., & Heyning, P. H. V. D. (2000) · Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research · doi:10.1044/jslhr.4303.796 · Cited by 578
Maryn, Y., Corthals, P., Van Cauwenberge, P., Roy, N., & De Bodt, M. (2010) · Journal of Voice · doi:10.1016/j.jvoice.2008.12.014 · Cited by 427
How Do You Say ‘Hello’? Personality Impressions from Brief Novel Voices
McAleer, P., Todorov, A., & Belin, P. (2014) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0090779 · Cited by 388
Pitch and Communicative Intent in Mother's Speech: Adjustments for Age and Sex in the First Year
Kitamura, C., & Burnham, D. (2003) · Infancy · doi:10.1207/s15327078in0401_5 · Cited by 261
Metadata
- Authors
- Kreiman, J., Gerratt, B. R., Kempster, G. B., Erman, A., & Berke, G. S.
- Venue
- Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research
- Published
- 1993-02
- Volume
- 36
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 21-40
- ISSN
- 1092-4388 (ISSN-L)
- 1558-9102
- OpenAlex
- W2011585205
- Cited by
- 737
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 2.91
- 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: Perceptual Evaluation of Voice Quality: Review, Tutorial, and a Framework for Future Research. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1044/jshr.3601.21
- The paper
- Kreiman, J., Gerratt, B. R., Kempster, G. B., Erman, A., & Berke, G. S. (1993). Perceptual Evaluation of Voice Quality: Review, Tutorial, and a Framework for Future Research. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research. https://doi.org/10.1044/jshr.3601.21
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.