Comparing acoustic and perceptual voice parameters in female teachers based on voice complaints
Background and Aim: Teachers are a large group of professional voice users that several risk factors and voice demands causes various voice complaints among them. As the voice is multidimensional, the aim of this study was acoustic and perceptual measurement of teachers’ voice and comparing the findings between two groups with many and few voice complaints.
Methods: Sixty female teachers of high school in Sari, north of Iran, were chosen by available sampling to participate in this cross-sectional study. According to a voice complaints questionnaire, 21 subjects located in few voice complaints and 31 in many voice complaints group. After a working day subjects completed a voice self-assessment questionnaire. Also, teachers’voice were recorded during three tasks including sustained vowels /a/ and /i/, text reading and conversational speech. Acoustic parameters were analyzed by Praat software and 2 speech-language pathalogists performed auditoryperceptual assessment by GRBAS (Grade, Roughness, Breathiness, Asthenia, Strain) scale.
Results: Comparing of the voice self-assessment between the two groups demonstrated statistically significant difference (p<0.05); however results of the acoustic and auditory-perceptual measurement did not show significant diffrence.
Conclusion: Despite prevalent voice problems in teachers, there are various conditions in terms of complaints and assessments methods. In this study, only a remarkable deviation documented in the client-based assessments in many voice compliants group in comparison with few voice compliants, which would be probably related to different individual’s perception of voice problem between two groups. These results support paying attention to self-assessments in clinical process of voice problems.
2. Hazlett E, Duffy M, Moorhead A. Review of the impact of voice training on the vocal quality of professional voice users: implications for vocal health and recommendations for further research. J Voice. 2011;25(2):181-91.
3. Bovo R, Galceran M, Petruccelli J, Hatzopoulos S. Vocal problem among teachers: evaluation of preventive voice program. J Voice. 2007;12(6):705-22.
4. Chen Sh, Chiang SC, Chung YM, Hsiao LC, Hsiao TY. Risk factor and effect of voice problems for teachers. J Voice. 2010;24(2):183-90.
5. Rantala R, Vilkman E, Bloigu R. Voice change during work: subjective complaints and objective measurements for female primary and secondary school teacher. J Voice. 2002;16(3):344-55.
6. Laukkanen A, Kankare E. Vocal loading-related changes in male teachers voices investigated before and after a working day. Folia Phoniatr Logop. 2006;58(3):229-39.
7. Tavares E, Martins RH. Vocal evaluation in teachers with or without symptoms. J Voice. 2007;21(4):407-14.
8. Lyberg Åhlander V, Rydell R, LöfqvistA. How do teachers with self-reported voice problems differ from their peers with self-reported voice health? J Voice. 2012; 26(4):e149-61.
9. Mogjiri F, Azamiyan F, Salehi A. Relationship between subjective voice complaints and acoustic assessment of fundamental frequency in elementary school teachers of Isfahan. J Res Rehab Sci. 2011;7(3):311-19.
10. Stemple JC, Stanley J, Lee L. Objective measures of voice production in normal subjects following prolonged voice use. J Voice. 1995;9(4):127-33.
11. Vilkman E, Lauri ER, Alku P, Sala E, Sihvo M. Effects of prolonged reading on F0, SPL, subglottal pressure and amplitude characteristics of glottal flow waveforms. J Voice. 1999;13(7):303-15.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.