Purpose: Aerodynamic assessments of voice are part of the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association–recommended, comprehensive approach for evaluating voice and voice disorders. However, one of the most widely used commercial multichannel systems for aerodynamic assessment, the Phonatory Aerodynamic System (PAS), is expensive and cumbersome, limiting widespread use. To address this clinical barrier, the aim of this proof-of-concept study was to assess the validity of pressure measurements using a commercially available, low-cost digital manometer (LDM). Method: This laboratory-based study used a motorized air pump and a simultaneous pressure testing study design to compare differences in pressure measurement between the PAS and the LDM. Concurrent validity was assessed using descriptive statistics, Lin's concordance correlation coefficient (ρ c ), Bland–Altman plots, and linear regression models. Concordance was interpreted as “poor” if ρ c < .90, “moderate” if ρ c = .90 to < .95, “substantial” if ρ c = .95 to < .999, and “excellent” if ρ c ≥ .999. Results: Substantial agreement was observed between the LDM and the PAS. Bland–Altman analysis revealed a consistent negative bias, with the LDM underestimating pressure by approximately 0.36 cmH 2 O. Regression modeling demonstrated excellent predictive accuracy ( R 2 = .999), with correction improving alignment between devices. Conclusions: The findings from this study demonstrate the potential for LDMs to enhance the clinical feasibility of obtaining intraoral pressure measurements that contribute to aerodynamic voice assessments, particularly in settings where access to comprehensive multichannel instrumentation is limited. Future research will compare aerodynamic measures of voice using LDM and PAS with human participants during phonatory tasks, expanding upon these proof-of-concept laboratory-based findings.
Curtis et al. (2026) studied this question.