Assessment of Tongue Position and Laryngeal Height in Two Professional Voice Populations

Diversity of Research Participant Gender, Race, and Ethnicity in Communication Sciences and Disorders: A Systematic Review and Quantitative Synthesis of American Speech-Language-Hearing Association Publications in 2020

Purpose

One manifestation of systemic inequities in communication sciences and disorders (CSD) is the chronic underreporting and underrepresentation of sex, gender, race, and ethnicity in research. The present study characterized recent demographic reporting practices and representation of participants across CSD research.

Methods

We systematically reviewed and extracted key reporting and participant data from empirical studies conducted in the United States (US) with human participants published in the year 2020 in journals by the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA; k = 407 articles comprising a total n = 80,058 research participants, search completed November 2021). Sex, gender, race, and ethnicity were operationalized per National Institutes of Health guidelines (National Institutes of Health, 2015a, 2015b).

Results

Sex or gender was reported in 85.5% of included studies; race was reported in 33.7%; and ethnicity was reported in 13.8%. Sex and gender were clearly differentiated in 3.4% of relevant studies. Where reported, median proportions for race and ethnicity were significantly different from the US population, with underrepresentation noted for all non-White racial groups and Hispanic participants. Moreover, 64.7% of studies that reported sex or gender and 67.2% of studies that reported race or ethnicity did not consider these respective variables in analyses or discussion.

Conclusion

At present, research published in ASHA journals frequently fails to report key demographic data summarizing the characteristics of participants. Moreover, apparent gaps in representation of minoritized racial and ethnic groups threaten the external validity of CSD research and broader health care equity endeavors in the US. Although our study is limited to a single year and publisher, our results point to several steps for readers that may bring greater accountability, consistency, and diversity to the discipline.

Listeners' Perception of Vocal Effects During Singing

INTRODUCTION

Effective communication is a key feature of vocal music. Singers can communicate during singing by changing their voice qualities to express emotion. Varying acceptable standards are used by performers for voice quality secondary to musical genre. Types of voice qualities that are historically perceived as abusive by some teachers of singing (ToS) and speech-language pathologists (SLPs) are vocal effects. This study investigates the perceptions of vocal effects in professional and nonprofessional listeners (NPLs).

METHODS

Participants (n = 100) completed an online survey. Participants were divided into four professional groups; Classical ToS, Contemporary ToS, SLPs, and NPLs. Participants completed an identification task to assess their ability to identify the use of a vocal effect. Secondly, participants analyzed a singer performing a vocal effect, rated their preferences towards the effect, and gave objective performance ratings using a Likert scale. Finally, participants were asked if they had concerns about the singer's voice. If the participant responded yes, they were asked who they would refer the singer to, a SLP, ToS or medical doctor (MD).

RESULTS

Statistically significant differences were observed in SLPs ability to identify the use of vocal effects compared to classical ToS (P = 0.01), contemporary ToS (P = 0.001) as well as NPLs compared to contemporary ToS (P = 0.009). NPLs were reported to have a lesser rate of concern statistically compared to professional listeners (P = .006). Statically significant differences were found when comparing performance rating scores secondary to preference for the vocal effect when comparisons were larger than one Likert rating interval. With listeners giving higher performance ratings, if they reported higher preference ratings. Finally, no significant differences were identified when comparing referral scores secondary to occupation.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings provide support for the presence of specific biases towards the use of vocal effects although no bias was found in management and care recommendations. Future research is recommended to investigate the nature of these biases.