## 3 Results  
According to [PERSON], [PERSON], and [PERSON] [37] classification, intra-examiner reliability for vowel /a/ was excellent for all examiners (0.85, 0.88, and 0.88). For continuous speech, the reliability for two examiners was excellent (0.75 and 0.79), and the third was satisfactory (0.73). Regarding inter-examiner reliability, it was satisfactory among all examiners in vowel /a/ (0.51, 0.59, and 0.68) and continuous speech (0.64, 0.70, and 0.72). Tables 1 and 2 show a complimentary analysis aiming to compare the groups regarding both acoustic and auditory-perceptual analyses. We used a \(t\)-test with a significance level fixed at 5% (\(p<0.05\)). As mentioned before, the strain parameter of auditory-perceptual analysis does not have a normal distribution, so we used the Mann-Whitney test (\(p<0.05\)) to complete the complementary analysis (Figure 1). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Acoustic** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Vowel**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Connected Speech**} \\ \cline{2-7}
**Measures** & & & & & **VHG** & **DG** \\ \hline  & **Mean \(\pm\) SD** & **Mean \(\pm\) SD** & **\(p\) Value** & **Mean \(\pm\) SD** & **Mean \(\pm\) SD** & **\(p\) Value** \\ \hline CPPs & \(16.447\pm 2.92\) & \(14.991\pm 2.65\) & \(0.001\)* & \(7.769\pm 1.68\) & \(7.448\pm 1.38\) & \(0.297\) \\ Alpha & \(-18.225\pm 5.26\) & \(-18.181\pm 4.64\) & \(0.965\) & \(-23.687\pm 4.10\) & \(-24.136\pm 3.74\) & \(0.565\) \\ L1–L0 & \(-6.691\pm 4.50\) & \(-5.245\pm 4.36\) & \(0.103\) & \(-6.149\pm 3.31\) & \(-5.612\pm 3.19\) & \(0.407\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} \(t\)-Test (\(p<0.05\)). Abbreviations: * = statistically significant result; VHG = vocally healthy group; DG = dysphonic group; CPPs = cepstral peak prominence-smoothed; SD = standard deviation.  
\end{table} 
Table 1: Analysis of acoustic measures (dB) from vowel /a/ and connected speech (number counting 1–10) in both groups: vocally healthy and dysphonic. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Auditory–Perceptual** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Vowel**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Connected Speech**} \\ \cline{2-7}
**Parameters** & & & & & **VHG** & **DG** \\ \hline  & **VHG** & **DG** & **Mean \(\pm\) SD** & **Mean \(\pm\) SD** & **Mean \(\pm\) SD** & **\(p\) Value** \\ \hline General degree & \(32.881\pm 8.03\) & \(50.510\pm 10.54\) & \(<\)0.001* & \(22.925\pm 6.08\) & \(50.510\pm 10.54\) & \(<\)0.001* \\ Roughness & \(21.308\pm 10.44\) & \(42.939\pm 14.23\) & \(<\)0.001* & \(15.969\pm 8.83\) & \(42.939\pm 14.23\) & \(<\)0.001* \\ Breathiness & \(23.648\pm 11.92\) & \(37.803\pm 12.19\) & \(<\)0.001* & \(12.994\pm 7.67\) & \(37.803\pm 12.19\) & \(<\)0.001* \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} \(t\)-Test (\(p<0.05\)). Abbreviations: * = statistically significant result; VHG = vocally healthy group; DG = dysphonic group; SD = standard deviation.  
\end{table} 
Table 2: Analysis of the intensity of the auditory–perceptual parameter (mm) from vowel /a/ and connected speech (counting 1–10) in both groups: vocally healthy and dysphonic. Tables 3 and 4 show all the correlations results. The statistically significant results were highlighted with an *. Between the acoustic variables and auditory-perceptual analysis, and for vowel /a/ emission (Table 3), VHG showed the following statistically significant correlations according to the [PERSON] et al. [38] classification: moderate negative between CPPs and general degree (_p_ < 0.001); strong negative between CPPs and breathiness (_p_ < 0.001); weak positive between the alpha ratio and strain (_p_ = 0.019); weak negative between L1-L0 and general degree (_p_ = 0.004); and moderate negative between L1-L0 and breathiness (_p_ < 0.001). DG had the following statistically significant correlations: moderate negative