The Effect of Maximum Phonation Time Goal on Efficacy of Vocal Function Exercises.
Maria Bane, Vrushali Angadi, Richard Andreatta and 1 others
PMID 37105793WHAT IT FOUND
Knowing your maximum phonation time goal did not significantly change improvement compared to not knowing it in healthy adults.
All groups improved after six weeks of vocal exercises, regardless of whether the goal was given at the start, delayed, or withheld.
Key findings
01There was no statistically significant difference in improvement between groups who knew their goal, had it delayed, or did not know it.
02Participants in the no-goal group still showed statistically significant improvement in their maximum phonation time.
03The study was underpowered due to participant withdrawals, with only 19 completing the protocol.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for SLPs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The study was severely underpowered; 34 participants were recruited but only 19 completed the study, with 9 withdrawing after starting exercises. Participants were healthy adults with normal voice, so findings cannot be generalized to patients with voice disorders. Home practice compliance was self-reported and could not be verified. Weekly sessions were conducted by research assistants rather than experienced speech-language pathologists, which may not reflect clinical reality.
Declared interests
The first three authors declared no conflicts of interest. The last author receives royalties from textbook and educational product publishers.
The easy way to misread this
Do not conclude that goal setting is ineffective. The study was underpowered and the primary outcome was null, meaning it failed to detect a difference. The numerical trend and effect sizes actually suggested a medium benefit for knowing the goal compared to not knowing it, but the study was too small to prove this statistically.
Summarised by AI from the full paper, without a clinician reviewing it. Check it against the source before it changes what you do. Read it on PubMed →