Cited by 45Voice and Speech DisordersPhonetics and Phonology ResearchHearing Loss and Rehabilitation

Monitoring change requires a rethink of assessment practices in voice and speech

Vogel, Adam P., Maruff, Paul·2014·Logopedics Phoniatrics Vocology

Abstract

Assessment for the purpose of monitoring change over time requires a different practical and statistical approach to that of assessment for diagnosing impairment. Sophisticated methods exist for identifying strengths and weaknesses in a patient's voice/speech profile, yet our understanding of the impact of repeated assessment is limited. Monitoring change necessitates that stimuli are stable in the absence of any true change in functioning, while remaining sensitive to influences that are considered to alter functioning (degeneration, therapy). The current paper discusses the issues relating to stimuli selection, identifying error within the sample and appropriate statistical models for identifying intra-individual change in the context of clinical and experimental speech or voice examinations.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3109/14015439.2013.775332

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • It can be challenging to quantify neurological deficits such as impaired speech and gait in an objective and reproducible way.

    “In turn, it can be challenging to quantify neurological deficits such as impaired speech and gait in an objective and reproducible way. 17”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Vogel, A. P., & Maruff, P.
Affiliations
The University of Melbourne (AU)
Corresponding author
Vogel, Adam P.
Venue
Logopedics Phoniatrics Vocology
Published
2013-03-05
Volume
39
Issue
2
Pages
56-61
ISSN
  • 1401-5439 (ISSN-L)
  • 1651-2022
OpenAlex
W2092786874
Cited by
45
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 1
FWCI
1.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Logopedics Phoniatrics Vocology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Minerva Access (University of Melbourne) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Health and Medical Research Council
  • National Medical Research Council
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Voice and Speech Disorders
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Phonetics and Phonology Research
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Hearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Keywords
voice assessment, speech assessment, repeated assessment, stimulus selection, error identification, within-person change, voice therapy, degeneration
MeSH terms
Acoustics, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Humans, Phonetics, Predictive Value of Tests, Speech Acoustics, Speech-Language Pathology, Speech Production Measurement, Time Factors, Voice Quality, Reproducibility of Results, Models, Statistical

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