Abstract
Purpose. To describe the acoustic characteristics of a classroom, voice quality, fatigue, and vocal load of university professors.
Methods. Exploratory, observational, longitudinal, and descriptive study with a single group of participants, including vocal monitoring data over two weeks. Acoustic characterization of the classroom, perceptual-auditory evaluation, and acoustic analysis of voice samples were conducted before and after classes. Vocal dosimetry was performed during classes, and the Vocal Fatigue Index (VFI) was assessed at the beginning of each week. Descriptive analysis of the findings was conducted, and randomization test was performed to verify the internal reliability of the judge.
Results. All participants reported speaking loudly in the classroom, with the majority reporting vocal changes in the past six months, and only one participant reported a current vocal change. The classroom had acoustical measures and estimations that deviated from established standards. The professors used high vocal intensities during classes. After the classes, an increase in the absolute values of the aggregated data for CAPE-V, jitter, and fundamental frequency was found, varying within the range of normality. Furthermore, there was an observed increase in both post-lesson intensity and VFI when comparing the two-week period.
Conclusions. Vocal intensities and VFI were possibly impacted by the acoustics of the classroom. The increase in average VFI between the weeks may be attributed to a cumulative fatigue sensation. Further research with a larger number of participants and in acoustically conditioned classrooms is suggested in order to evaluate collective intervention proposals aimed at reducing the vocal load on teachers.
Publisher
Fundacion Universitaria Maria Cano
Reference43 articles.
1. Roy N, Merril RM, Thibeault S, Parsa RA, Gray SD, Smith EM. Prevalence of voice disorders in teachers and the general population. J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 2004;47(2). doi: https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2004/023)
2. Behlau M, Zambon F, Guerrieri AC, Roy N. Epidemiology of voice disorders in teachers and nonteachers in Brazil: prevalence and adverse effects. J Voice. 2012;26(5):665.e9-18. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2011.09.010
3. Brasil. Secretaria de Vigilância em Saúde, Departamento de Vigilância em Saúde Ambiental e Saúde do Trabalhador. Distúrbio de Voz Relacionado ao Trabalho – DVRT. Brasília, DF: Ministério da Saúde; 2018. Available from: http://bvsms.saude.gov.br/bvs/publicacoes/disturbio_voz_relacionado_trabalho_dvrt.pdf
4. Masson MLV, Ferrite S, Pereira LMA, Ferreira LP, Araujo TM. Seeking the recognition of voice disorder as work-related disease: historical-political movement. Cien Saude Colet. (online). 2019;24(3):805-16. doi: https://doi.org/10.1590/1413-81232018243.00502017
5. Cantor Cutiva LC, Vogel I, Burdof A. Voice disorders in teachers and their associations with work-related factors: a systematic review. J. Commun. Disord., Amsterdam. 2013;46(2):143-55. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcomdis.2013.01.001