Development of an Instrument to Assess Work Productivity in Individuals With Voice Disorders: The Work Hoarse
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES:: Vocal function is critical to employability in the modern era. Although research clearly demonstrates that a disordered voice affects quality of life, few studies have attempted to quantitate the effects of a disordered voice on work productivity. The Voice-Related Statements battery, which originally had 20 items, was previously developed to qualitatively describe how an individual's dysphonia affects his or her job performance. The aim of this study was to refine and reduce the item number and provide preliminary validation of this shortened instrument. METHODS:: The Voice-Related Statements instrument was administered to employed patients with dysphonia in conjunction with 2 additional instruments: the Voice Handicap Index (VHI) and the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment questionnaire (WPAI). Response distributions and intercorrelations were examined for item reduction. Exploratory factor analysis was conducted on retained items. Correlations were performed with other voice-related instruments. Reliability was tested using a coefficient of stability. RESULTS:: One hundred seventy-four employed patients with dysphonia were enrolled in this study. Six items were removed because of redundancy, factor analysis, and cognitive interview results. Exploratory factor analysis revealed a 1-factor structure explaining 66.28% of the total variance. The final 8-item instrument demonstrated good internal consistency (Cronbach α = 0.93), with a moderately robust correlation with the VHI ( r = 0.68, P < .001) and WPAI work impairment measures ( r = 0.63, P < .001). The VHI showed a much weaker correlation with WPAI work impairment ( r = 0.48, P < .001). Test-retest reliability was good (0.83, P < .01). CONCLUSIONS:: An 8-item instrument to qualitatively measure the impact of a disordered voice at work has been developed and is called the Work Hoarse. This instrument is a better measure of voice-related work productivity impairment than the VHI and will augment quantitative work productivity instruments that are currently available.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".