Voice Therapy Per the Rehabilitation Treatment Specification System

The purpose of this study is to evaluate if using evidence-based, standard ingredient and target codes from the Rehabilitation Treatment Specification System - Voice Therapy (RTSS-Voice) in standard of care voice therapy documentation can improve outcomes for patients with muscle tension dysphonia (MTD). RTSS-Voice adoption is likely to be associated with improved outcomes because it requires clinicians to think about their therapy in relation to nine evidence-based therapies (i.e., increased evidence-based practice) and more carefully consider the specific changes in targets directly related to specific clinical actions, i.e., improved clinical reasoning. Sixty patents will be enrolled per year (at minimum) from each of the five participating voice centers, i.e., 300 patients in Years 1 and 2 (total patients = 600). For each patient, outcomes will be collected before and after therapy including patient-reported vocal functioning, clinician-reported voice quality, an objective measure associated with overall voice quality (Cepstral Peak Prominence/CPP), and total number of sessions. Each voice center uses different patient-reported and clinician-reported measures. Thus, linear regression models will examine changes in outcomes during Year 1 versus Year 2 for each individual site. The different patient- and clinician-reported measures have been found to be highly correlated. Therefore, individual sites will also be pooled together in a mini meta-analysis. Standardized effect sizes (Cohen's d) will be calculated for each site, representing the effect of RTSS-Voice adoption. Using a fixed effects model, an average effect size across sites will be calculated, weighted by sample size. The average effect size across sites will then represent the overall effect of the implementation on vocal functioning, voice quality, CPP, and number of sessions. Power: The investigators anticipate a minimum of 60 patients per site, (total of 300 patients per year). For site-specific analyses, a sample size of 60 patients for each group (Year 1 versus Year 2) is associated with 80% power to detect the smallest clinically meaningful effect size: d = .5. The effect size d = .5 was chosen because it is the smallest effect that is "visible to the naked eye" associated with rejecting the null hypothesis and supporting the alternative hypothesis in rehabilitation treatment studies and used in multiple voice studies.