Current trends in terminology used by speech-language pathologists in voice therapy with adult voice patients: A mixed methods study

Objectives: Past research has provided preliminary evidence that specific terminology used in voice therapy may impact patient self-efficacy and adherence. However, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, no previous study identifies current patterns in terminology used by Speech-Language Pathologists (SLPs) during voice evaluation and therapy. The purpose of this study is to a) identify current trends in terminology used by SLPs with adult voice therapy patients, b) assess SLPs’ opinions of negative or positive value judgements associated with terminology, and c) investigate how value judgements of terminology may impact SLPs’ use of clinical language with patients.

Methods: This study employed a mixed-methods approach using a self-report online survey open to licensed SLPs and SLP clinical fellows who treat adult voice patients and conduct services primarily in English. The survey included open-text responses as well as Likert scales prompting participants to report typical phrasing used during patient counseling, frequency of terminology use given specific words or phrases, and opinions on perceived negativity or positivity of selected terms. 107 (n=107) responses have been collected thus far, and data collection is ongoing.

Results: Preliminary analysis revealed that participants reported using the words “inefficient” and “discoordinated” more frequently than “phonotraumatic,” “unbalanced,” “vocal abuse,” “maladaptive,” and “unhealthy” when speaking to patients about manner of voice use. Participants reported using the terms “vocal demands” and “overuse” more frequently than “unsustainable,” “misuse,” “vocal load/dose,” and “vocal budget” when speaking to patients about amount of voice use. Participants were asked to rate their perceived positive or negative value judgments of selected terminology. Perceived negativity significantly predicted the frequency of use for “maladaptive behaviors” (p = 6.94e-06; O.R. = 21.7); “vocal abuse” (p = .0153; O.R. = 8.89); and “vocal load” (p = .0001; O.R. = 16.89).

Conclusion: Preliminary results suggest an association between SLPs’ opinions of terminology value judgements and frequency of term use with adult voice therapy patients. Data collection and analysis is ongoing. The findings from this investigation will inform future phases exploring the impact of clinical terminology on patient perceptions of self-efficacy in voice therapy.