Outcomes of Voice Therapy in Behavioral Voice Disorders: A Scoping Review-Part A

To map the outcome assessment instruments and procedures used to determine the effect of voice therapy in adults with behavioral voice disorders.

This scoping review was registered in the Open Science Framework (doi: 10.17605/OSF.IO/YDGA8). The guiding research question was: "What outcomes are used to assess the effects of voice therapy in adults with behavioral voice disorders?" Searches were conducted across bibliographic databases and gray literature sources and through backward and forward citation tracking. Studies involving adults with behavioral voice disorders undergoing voice therapy were included when outcomes were assessed within the context of speech-language pathology. Data were extracted on publication characteristics, sample features, and assessment outcomes. A descriptive analysis was performed, and results were presented in figures and tables.

A total of 438 studies were included, most published in the last decade, with a marked increase in the last five years. Publications were predominantly concentrated in specialized voice journals, particularly the Journal of Voice. Samples most frequently included mixed-gender groups and both professional and nonprofessional voice users, with teachers representing the most common professional category. Outcome assessment was predominantly multidimensional. Laryngeal imaging, self-assessment instruments, acoustic analysis, auditory-perceptual judgment, and clinical interviews were the most frequently reported assessment components. Structural laryngeal evaluation and vocal handicap measures were the most common subcategories. The findings reflect outcomes explicitly reported in the intervention literature, and some assessment procedures may be underrepresented due to limited reporting detail in primary studies.

Outcome assessment in voice therapy for behavioral voice disorders is predominantly grounded in traditional multidimensional models, with strong emphasis on laryngeal imaging and patient-reported measures. These findings underscore the central role of structural and self-perceived outcomes in clinical and research practice and highlight opportunities to expand the use of physiologically sensitive and therapy-responsive measures.