Encuestando a fonoaudiólogos colombianos sobre su entrenamiento y prácticas reportadas en la evaluación perceptual auditiva de la voz
Titulo:

Encuestando a fonoaudiólogos colombianos sobre su entrenamiento y prácticas reportadas en la evaluación perceptual auditiva de la voz
.

Sumario:

Objetivo. Explorar los reportes de fonoaudiólogos colombianos acerca del entrenamiento y uso de la evaluación perceptual auditiva de la voz. Diseño de estudio. Se eligió un diseño de investigación observacional transversal con un enfoque cuantitativo. Metodología. Se diseñó y distribuyó un cuestionario digital para recopilar información sobre el proceso de formación de los profesionales y la implementación de procedimientos de evaluación perceptual auditiva. Se aplicaron estadísticas descriptivas y se ajustaron varios modelos lineales generalizados para determinar la influencia de ciertas variables en otras. Resultados. La encuesta recibió respuestas de 40 fonoaudiólogos, revelando que las escalas más utilizadas para la formación y la evalu... Ver más

Guardado en:

Revista de Investigación e Innovación en Ciencias de la Salud

2665-2056

Peña Sanchez, Martha

Delprado-Aguirre, Fernando

FUNDACION UNIVERSITARIA MARIA CANO

10.46634/riics.238

6

2024-01-29

148

168

Colombia

Evaluación perceptual auditiva

calidad vocal

formación

evaluación vocal

percepción

calificación

anclajes

juicios vocales

escala

Revista de Investigación e Innovación en Ciencias de la Salud - 2024

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess

http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2

id metarevistapublica_fumc_revistadeinvestigacioneinnovacionencienciasdelasalud_67_article_238
record_format ojs
institution FUNDACION UNIVERSITARIA MARIA CANO
thumbnail https://nuevo.metarevistas.org/FUNDACIONUNIVERSITARIAMARIACANO/logo.png
country_str Colombia
collection Revista de Investigación e Innovación en Ciencias de la Salud
title Encuestando a fonoaudiólogos colombianos sobre su entrenamiento y prácticas reportadas en la evaluación perceptual auditiva de la voz
spellingShingle Encuestando a fonoaudiólogos colombianos sobre su entrenamiento y prácticas reportadas en la evaluación perceptual auditiva de la voz
Peña Sanchez, Martha
Delprado-Aguirre, Fernando
Auditory-perceptual evaluation
voice
voice quality
training
voice assessment
perception
rating
anchors
voice judgments
scale
Evaluación perceptual auditiva
calidad vocal
formación
evaluación vocal
percepción
calificación
anclajes
juicios vocales
escala
title_short Encuestando a fonoaudiólogos colombianos sobre su entrenamiento y prácticas reportadas en la evaluación perceptual auditiva de la voz
title_full Encuestando a fonoaudiólogos colombianos sobre su entrenamiento y prácticas reportadas en la evaluación perceptual auditiva de la voz
title_fullStr Encuestando a fonoaudiólogos colombianos sobre su entrenamiento y prácticas reportadas en la evaluación perceptual auditiva de la voz
title_full_unstemmed Encuestando a fonoaudiólogos colombianos sobre su entrenamiento y prácticas reportadas en la evaluación perceptual auditiva de la voz
title_sort encuestando a fonoaudiólogos colombianos sobre su entrenamiento y prácticas reportadas en la evaluación perceptual auditiva de la voz
description Objetivo. Explorar los reportes de fonoaudiólogos colombianos acerca del entrenamiento y uso de la evaluación perceptual auditiva de la voz. Diseño de estudio. Se eligió un diseño de investigación observacional transversal con un enfoque cuantitativo. Metodología. Se diseñó y distribuyó un cuestionario digital para recopilar información sobre el proceso de formación de los profesionales y la implementación de procedimientos de evaluación perceptual auditiva. Se aplicaron estadísticas descriptivas y se ajustaron varios modelos lineales generalizados para determinar la influencia de ciertas variables en otras. Resultados. La encuesta recibió respuestas de 40 fonoaudiólogos, revelando que las escalas más utilizadas para la formación y la evaluación de la calidad vocal en el grupo son las estimaciones de magnitud directa (82.5% y 77.5%). Del mismo modo, en este grupo las tareas más frecuentemente utilizadas para la formación y el uso como estrategia de evaluación son las vocales (38%), seguidas por el habla espontánea (30%). La mayoría de los profesionales del grupo fueron formados utilizando un marco conceptual que involucra múltiples exposiciones a la calificación (42.5%). El uso de la estimación de magnitud directa en la formación con una voz normal mostró significancia (p = 0.015), al igual que el uso de la vocal /i/ en la formación con intervalos de igual apariencia (p = 0.013). Los modelos estadísticos que relacionan la escala utilizada con la escala en la que los participantes fueron entrenados también fueron significativos (p < 0.05). Conclusiones. La escala GRBAS es la herramienta de formación más utilizada por el grupo de fonoaudiólogos del estudio. Los esfuerzos futuros deberían centrarse en mejorar las prácticas de formación para la evaluación perceptual auditiva, explorar marcos conceptuales alternativos e incorporar referencias externas para mejorar la validez y la confiabilidad.
description_eng Objective. To explore the training and use of auditory perceptual evaluation of the voice reported by Colombian speech-language pathologists. Study Design. Cross-sectional observational research with a quantitative approach. Methods. A digital questionnaire was designed and distributed to gather information regarding professionals' training process and implementation of auditory-perceptual evaluation procedures. Descriptive statistics were applied, and several generalized linear models were adjusted to determine the influence of certain variables on others. Results. The survey received responses from 40 speech-language pathologists, revealing that the most used scales for training and evaluating vocal quality within this group are direct magnitude estimations (82.5% and 77.5%). Similarly, in this group, the tasks most frequently used to train and use as an evaluation strategy are vowel assessments (38%) followed by spontaneous speech (30%). Practitioners of this group were mostly trained using a conceptual framework involving multiple exposures to rating (42.5%). The use of direct magnitude estimation in training with a normal voice showed significance (p = 0.015), as did the use of the vowel /i/ in training with an equal-appearing interval (p = 0.013). The statistical models relating the scale used to the scale on which participants were trained were also significant (p < 0.05). Conclusions. The GRBAS scale is the training tool most used by the group of speech-language pathologists of the study group in Colombia. Future efforts should focus on improving training practices for auditory-perceptual evaluation, exploring alternative conceptual frameworks, and incorporating external references to enhance validity and reliability.
author Peña Sanchez, Martha
Delprado-Aguirre, Fernando
author_facet Peña Sanchez, Martha
Delprado-Aguirre, Fernando
topic Auditory-perceptual evaluation
voice
voice quality
training
voice assessment
perception
rating
anchors
voice judgments
scale
Evaluación perceptual auditiva
calidad vocal
formación
evaluación vocal
percepción
calificación
anclajes
juicios vocales
escala
topic_facet Auditory-perceptual evaluation
voice
voice quality
training
voice assessment
perception
rating
anchors
voice judgments
scale
Evaluación perceptual auditiva
calidad vocal
formación
evaluación vocal
percepción
calificación
anclajes
juicios vocales
escala
topicspa_str_mv Evaluación perceptual auditiva
calidad vocal
formación
evaluación vocal
percepción
calificación
anclajes
juicios vocales
escala
citationvolume 6
citationissue 1
publisher Fundación Universitaria María Cano
ispartofjournal Revista de Investigación e Innovación en Ciencias de la Salud
source https://riics.info/index.php/RCMC/article/view/238
language eng
format Article
rights https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/deed.es
Revista de Investigación e Innovación en Ciencias de la Salud - 2024
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2
references_eng Kempster GB, Gerratt BR, Verdolini Abbott K, Barkmeier-Kraemer J, Hillman RE. Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice: Development of a Standardized Clinical Protocol. Am J Speech Lang Pathol [Internet]. 2009;18(2):124-32. doi: https://doi.org/10.1044/1058-0360(2008/08-0017) 2. Van Stan JH, Whyte J, Duffy JR, Barkmeier-Kraemer J, Doyle P, Gherson S, et al. Voice Therapy According to the Rehabilitation Treatment Specification System: Expert Consensus Ingredients and Targets. Am J Speech Lang Pathol [Internet]. 2021;30(5):2169-201. doi: https://doi.org/10.1044/2021_AJSLP-21-00076 3. Morato-Galán M, Caminero Cueva MJ, Rodrigo JP, Suárez Nieto C, Núñez-Batalla F. Valoración de la calidad vocal tras el tratamiento del carcinoma faringolaríngeo avanzado en un protocolo de preservación de órgano. Acta Otorrinolaringol Esp [Internet]. 2014;65(5):283-8. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otorri.2013.12.005 4. Kreiman J, Gerratt BR, Kempster GB, Erman A, Berke GS. Perceptual Evaluation of Voice Quality: Review, Tutorial, and a Framework for Future Research. J Speech Lang Hear Res [Internet]. 1993;36(1):21-40. doi: https://doi.org/10.1044/jshr.3601.21 5. Gerratt BR, Kreiman J, Antonanzas-Barroso N, Berke GS. Comparing Internal and External Standards in Voice Quality Judgments. J Speech Lang Hear Res [Internet]. 1993;36(1):14-20. doi: https://doi.org/10.1044/jshr.3601.14 6. Kreiman J, Gerratt BR. Validity of rating scale measures of voice quality. J Acoust Soc Am [Internet]. 1998;104(3):1598-608. doi: https://doi.org/10.1121/1.424372 7. Ghio A, Dufour S, Wengler A, Pouchoulin G, Revis J, Giovanni A. Perceptual Evaluation of Dysphonic Voices: Can a Training Protocol Lead to the Development of Perceptual Categories? J Voice [Internet]. 2015;29(3):304-11. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2014.07.006 8. Chan KMK, Yiu EM-L. The Effect of Anchors and Training on the Reliability of Perceptual Voice Evaluation. J Speech Lang Hear Res [Internet]. 2002;45(1):111-26. doi: https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2002/009) 9. Altenberg EP, Ferrand CT. Perception of Individuals with Voice Disorders by Monolingual English, Bilingual Cantonese–English, and Bilingual Russian–English Women. J Speech Lang Hear Res [Internet]. 2006;49(4):879-87. doi: https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2006/063) 10. Chaves CR, Campbell M, Côrtes Gama AC. The Influence of Native Language on Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Vocal Samples Completed by Brazilian and Canadian SLPs. J Voice [Internet]. 2017;31(2):258.e1-258.e5. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2016.05.021 11. De Bodt MS, Wuyts FL, Van de Heyning PH, Croux C. Test-retest study of the GRBAS scale: Influence of experience and professional background on perceptual rating of voice quality. J Voice [Internet]. 1997;11(1):74-80. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0892-1997(97)80026-4 12. Eadie TL, Kapsner M, Rosenzweig J, Waugh P, Hillel A, Merati A. The Role of Experience on Judgments of Dysphonia. J Voice [Internet]. 2010;24(5):564-73. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2008.12.005 13. Eadie TL, Kapsner-Smith M. The Effect of Listener Experience and Anchors on Judgments of Dysphonia. J Speech Lang Hear Res [Internet]. 2011;54(2):430-47. doi: https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2010/09-0205) 14. Chan KMK, Yiu EM-L. A Comparison of Two Perceptual Voice Evaluation Training Programs for Naive Listeners. J Voice [Internet]. 2006;20(2):229-41. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2005.03.007 15. Walden PR, Khayumov J. The Use of Auditory-Perceptual Training as a Research Method: A Summary Review. J Voice [Internet]. 2022;36(3):322-34. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2020.06.032 16. Patel S, Shrivastav R, Eddins DA. Developing a Single Comparison Stimulus for Matching Breathy Voice Quality. J Speech Lang Hear Res [Internet]. 2012;55(2):639-47. doi: https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2011/10-0337) 17. Anand S, Kopf LM, Shrivastav R, Eddins DA. Objective Indices of Perceived Vocal Strain. J Voice [Internet]. 2019;33(6):838-45. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2018.06.005 18. Eadie TL, Baylor CR. The Effect of Perceptual Training on Inexperienced Listeners’ Judgments of Dysphonic Voice. J Voice [Internet]. 2006;20(4):527-44. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2005.08.007 19. Sofranko JL, Prosek RA. The Effect of Levels and Types of Experience on Judgment of Synthesized Voice Quality. J Voice [Internet]. 2014;28(1):24-35. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2013.06.001 20. Webb AL, Carding PN, Deary IJ, MacKenzie K, Steen N, Wilson JA. The reliability of three perceptual evaluation scales for dysphonia. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol [Internet]. 2004;261(8):429-34. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-003-0707-7 21. Zraick RI, Kempster GB, Connor NP, Thibeault S, Klaben BK, Bursac Z, et al. Establishing Validity of the Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V). Am J Speech Lang Pathol [Internet]. 2011;20(1):14-22. doi: https://doi.org/10.1044/1058-0360(2010/09-0105) 22. Nagle KF. Emerging Scientist: Challenges to CAPE-V as a Standard. Perspect ASHA SIGs [Internet]. 2016;1(3):47-53. doi: https://doi.org/10.1044/persp1.SIG3.47 23. Shrivastav R, Sapienza CM, Nandur V. Application of Psychometric Theory to the Measurement of Voice Quality Using Rating Scales. J Speech Lang Hear Res [Internet]. 2005;48(2):323-35. doi: https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2005/022) 24. Patel RR, Awan SN, Barkmeier-Kraemer J, Courey M, Deliyski D, Eadie T, et al. Recommended Protocols for Instrumental Assessment of Voice: American Speech-Language-Hearing Association Expert Panel to Develop a Protocol for Instrumental Assessment of Vocal Function. Am J Speech Lang Pathol [Internet]. 2018;27(3):887-905. doi: https://doi.org/10.1044/2018_AJSLP-17-0009 25. Eadie TL, Doyle PC. Direct magnitude estimation and interval scaling of pleasantness and severity in dysphonic and normal speakers. J Acoust Soc Am [Internet]. 2002;112(6):3014-21. doi: https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1518983 26. Iwarsson J, Bingen-Jakobsen A, Johansen DS, Kølle IE, Pedersen SG, Thorsen SL, et al. Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Dysphonia: A Comparison Between Narrow and Broad Terminology Systems. J Voice [Internet]. 2018;32(4):428-36. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2017.07.006 27. Yamauchi EJ, Imaizumi S, Maruyama H, Haji T. Perceptual evaluation of pathological voice quality: A comparative analysis between the RASATI and GRBASI scales. Logopedics Phoniatrics Vocology [Internet]. 2010;35(3):121-8. doi: https://doi.org/10.3109/14015430903334269 28. Maryn Y, Corthals P, Van Cauwenberge P, Roy N, De Bodt M. Toward Improved Ecological Validity in the Acoustic Measurement of Overall Voice Quality: Combining Continuous Speech and Sustained Vowels. J Voice [Internet]. 2010;24(5):540-55. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2008.12.014 29. Maryn Y, Roy N. Sustained vowels and continuous speech in the auditory-perceptual evaluation of dysphonia severity. J Soc Bras Fonoaudiol [Internet]. 2012;24(2):107-12. doi: https://doi.org/10.1590/S2179-64912012000200003 30. Anand S, Skowronski MD, Shrivastav R, Eddins DA. Perceptual and Quantitative Assessment of Dysphonia Across Vowel Categories. J Voice [Internet]. 2019;33(4):473-81. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2017.12.018 31. Delgado Romero C. La identificación de locutores en el ámbito forense [PhD’s thesis]. Madrid: Universidad Complutense de Madrid. 2001. 366 p. Available from: https://docta.ucm.es/handle/20.500.14352/55123 32. dos Santos PCM, Vieira MN, Sansão JPH, Gama ACC. Effect of Auditory-Perceptual Training With Natural Voice Anchors on Vocal Quality Evaluation. J Voice [Internet]. 2019;33(2):220-5. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2017.10.020 33. Solomon NP, Helou LB, Stojadinovic A. Clinical Versus Laboratory Ratings of Voice Using the CAPE-V. J Voice [Internet]. 2011;25(1):e7-14. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2009.10.007 34. Helou LB, Solomon NP, Henry LR, Coppit GL, Howard RS, Stojadinovic A. The Role of Listener Experience on Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V) Ratings of Postthyroidectomy Voice. Am J Speech Lang Pathol [Internet]. 2010;19(3):248-58. doi: https://doi.org/10.1044/1058-0360(2010/09-0012) 35. Cantarella G, Barillari MR, Lechien JR, Pignataro L. The Challenge of Virtual Voice Therapy During the COVID-19 Pandemic. J Voice [Internet]. 2021;35(3):336-7. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2020.06.015 36. Castillo-Allendes A, Contreras-Ruston F, Cantor-Cutiva LC, Codino J, Guzman M, Malebran C, et al. Voice Therapy in the Context of the COVID-19 Pandemic: Guidelines for Clinical Practice. J Voice [Internet]. 2021;35(5):717-27. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2020.08.001 37. Fujiki RB, Sanders PW, Sivasankar MP, Halum S. Determining Medical Urgency of Voice Disorders Using Auditory-Perceptual Voice Assessments Performed by Speech-Language Pathologists. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol [Internet]. 2022;131(6):579-86. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/00034894211032779 38. Dahl KL, Weerathunge HR, Buckley DP, Dolling AS, Díaz-Cádiz M, Tracy LF, et al. Reliability and Accuracy of Expert Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice via Telepractice Platforms. Am J Speech Lang Pathol [Internet]. 2021;30(6):2446-55. doi: https://doi.org/10.1044/2021_AJSLP-21-00091 39. Behrman A. Common Practices of Voice Therapists in the Evaluation of Patients. J Voice [Internet]. 2005;19(3):454-69. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2004.08.004 40. Peña Sánchez MJ, Ángel Gordillo LF, Sastoque Hernández ME, Rodríguez Campo A, Calvache Mora CA. Evaluación Perceptual de la Voz: Resignifcando lo que hacemos. Jornada de teleconferencias nacionales Celebración Día mundial de la voz 2018. Rev Colomb Rehabil [Internet]. 2018;17(1):52-8. doi: https://doi.org/10.30788/RevColReh.v17.n1.2018.322 41. Peña Sánchez MJ. Evaluación perceptual auditiva. Fundamento de la valoración integral de la voz. In: Cecconello LA, editor. Iº Congreso Iberoamericano de voz cantada y hablada [Internet]; 2010 Oct 22-23; Buenos Aires, Argentina: Fundación Iberoamericana de voz cantada y hablada; 2010. p. 32-41. 42. Ma EP-M, Yiu EM-L. Handbook of Voice Assessments. 1st ed. San Diego: Plural Publishing; 2011. 400 p. 43. Hurren A, Miller N, Carding P. Perceptual Assessment of Tracheoesophageal Voice Quality with the SToPS: The Development of a Reliable and Valid Tool. J Voice [Internet]. 2019;33(4):465-72. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2017.12.006 44. Chan KMK, Li M, Law TY, Yiu EML. Effects of immediate feedback on learning auditory perceptual voice quality evaluation. Int J Speech Lang Pathol [Internet]. 2012;14(4):363-9. doi: https://doi.org/10.3109/17549507.2012.679746 45. Hirano M. Clinical examination of voice. Berlin: Springer Verlag; 1981. 100 p. 46. Wilson D. Voice problems of children. Philadelphia: Williams & Wilkins; 1987. 400 p. 47. Heuillet-Martin G, Garson-Bavard H, Legré A. Una voz para todos. SOLAL; 2003. 400 p.
type_driver info:eu-repo/semantics/article
type_coar http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501
type_version info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
type_coarversion http://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a85
type_content Text
publishDate 2024-01-29
date_accessioned 2024-01-29T17:38:48Z
date_available 2024-01-29T17:38:48Z
url https://riics.info/index.php/RCMC/article/view/238
url_doi https://doi.org/10.46634/riics.238
eissn 2665-2056
doi 10.46634/riics.238
citationstartpage 148
citationendpage 168
url3_str_mv https://riics.info/index.php/RCMC/article/download/238/942
url4_str_mv https://riics.info/index.php/RCMC/article/download/238/941
url2_str_mv https://riics.info/index.php/RCMC/article/download/238/938
_version_ 1811200651874533376
spelling Encuestando a fonoaudiólogos colombianos sobre su entrenamiento y prácticas reportadas en la evaluación perceptual auditiva de la voz
Encuestando a fonoaudiólogos colombianos sobre su entrenamiento y prácticas reportadas en la evaluación perceptual auditiva de la voz
Objetivo. Explorar los reportes de fonoaudiólogos colombianos acerca del entrenamiento y uso de la evaluación perceptual auditiva de la voz. Diseño de estudio. Se eligió un diseño de investigación observacional transversal con un enfoque cuantitativo. Metodología. Se diseñó y distribuyó un cuestionario digital para recopilar información sobre el proceso de formación de los profesionales y la implementación de procedimientos de evaluación perceptual auditiva. Se aplicaron estadísticas descriptivas y se ajustaron varios modelos lineales generalizados para determinar la influencia de ciertas variables en otras. Resultados. La encuesta recibió respuestas de 40 fonoaudiólogos, revelando que las escalas más utilizadas para la formación y la evaluación de la calidad vocal en el grupo son las estimaciones de magnitud directa (82.5% y 77.5%). Del mismo modo, en este grupo las tareas más frecuentemente utilizadas para la formación y el uso como estrategia de evaluación son las vocales (38%), seguidas por el habla espontánea (30%). La mayoría de los profesionales del grupo fueron formados utilizando un marco conceptual que involucra múltiples exposiciones a la calificación (42.5%). El uso de la estimación de magnitud directa en la formación con una voz normal mostró significancia (p = 0.015), al igual que el uso de la vocal /i/ en la formación con intervalos de igual apariencia (p = 0.013). Los modelos estadísticos que relacionan la escala utilizada con la escala en la que los participantes fueron entrenados también fueron significativos (p < 0.05). Conclusiones. La escala GRBAS es la herramienta de formación más utilizada por el grupo de fonoaudiólogos del estudio. Los esfuerzos futuros deberían centrarse en mejorar las prácticas de formación para la evaluación perceptual auditiva, explorar marcos conceptuales alternativos e incorporar referencias externas para mejorar la validez y la confiabilidad.
Objective. To explore the training and use of auditory perceptual evaluation of the voice reported by Colombian speech-language pathologists. Study Design. Cross-sectional observational research with a quantitative approach. Methods. A digital questionnaire was designed and distributed to gather information regarding professionals' training process and implementation of auditory-perceptual evaluation procedures. Descriptive statistics were applied, and several generalized linear models were adjusted to determine the influence of certain variables on others. Results. The survey received responses from 40 speech-language pathologists, revealing that the most used scales for training and evaluating vocal quality within this group are direct magnitude estimations (82.5% and 77.5%). Similarly, in this group, the tasks most frequently used to train and use as an evaluation strategy are vowel assessments (38%) followed by spontaneous speech (30%). Practitioners of this group were mostly trained using a conceptual framework involving multiple exposures to rating (42.5%). The use of direct magnitude estimation in training with a normal voice showed significance (p = 0.015), as did the use of the vowel /i/ in training with an equal-appearing interval (p = 0.013). The statistical models relating the scale used to the scale on which participants were trained were also significant (p < 0.05). Conclusions. The GRBAS scale is the training tool most used by the group of speech-language pathologists of the study group in Colombia. Future efforts should focus on improving training practices for auditory-perceptual evaluation, exploring alternative conceptual frameworks, and incorporating external references to enhance validity and reliability.
Peña Sanchez, Martha
Delprado-Aguirre, Fernando
Auditory-perceptual evaluation
voice
voice quality
training
voice assessment
perception
rating
anchors
voice judgments
scale
Evaluación perceptual auditiva
voz
calidad vocal
formación
evaluación vocal
percepción
calificación
anclajes
juicios vocales
escala
6
1
Artículo de revista
Journal article
2024-01-29T17:38:48Z
2024-01-29T17:38:48Z
2024-01-29
text/html
text/xml
application/pdf
application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.spreadsheetml.sheet
application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Fundación Universitaria María Cano
Revista de Investigación e Innovación en Ciencias de la Salud
2665-2056
https://riics.info/index.php/RCMC/article/view/238
10.46634/riics.238
https://doi.org/10.46634/riics.238
eng
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/deed.es
Revista de Investigación e Innovación en Ciencias de la Salud - 2024
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
148
168
Kempster GB, Gerratt BR, Verdolini Abbott K, Barkmeier-Kraemer J, Hillman RE. Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice: Development of a Standardized Clinical Protocol. Am J Speech Lang Pathol [Internet]. 2009;18(2):124-32. doi: https://doi.org/10.1044/1058-0360(2008/08-0017) 2. Van Stan JH, Whyte J, Duffy JR, Barkmeier-Kraemer J, Doyle P, Gherson S, et al. Voice Therapy According to the Rehabilitation Treatment Specification System: Expert Consensus Ingredients and Targets. Am J Speech Lang Pathol [Internet]. 2021;30(5):2169-201. doi: https://doi.org/10.1044/2021_AJSLP-21-00076 3. Morato-Galán M, Caminero Cueva MJ, Rodrigo JP, Suárez Nieto C, Núñez-Batalla F. Valoración de la calidad vocal tras el tratamiento del carcinoma faringolaríngeo avanzado en un protocolo de preservación de órgano. Acta Otorrinolaringol Esp [Internet]. 2014;65(5):283-8. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otorri.2013.12.005 4. Kreiman J, Gerratt BR, Kempster GB, Erman A, Berke GS. Perceptual Evaluation of Voice Quality: Review, Tutorial, and a Framework for Future Research. J Speech Lang Hear Res [Internet]. 1993;36(1):21-40. doi: https://doi.org/10.1044/jshr.3601.21 5. Gerratt BR, Kreiman J, Antonanzas-Barroso N, Berke GS. Comparing Internal and External Standards in Voice Quality Judgments. J Speech Lang Hear Res [Internet]. 1993;36(1):14-20. doi: https://doi.org/10.1044/jshr.3601.14 6. Kreiman J, Gerratt BR. Validity of rating scale measures of voice quality. J Acoust Soc Am [Internet]. 1998;104(3):1598-608. doi: https://doi.org/10.1121/1.424372 7. Ghio A, Dufour S, Wengler A, Pouchoulin G, Revis J, Giovanni A. Perceptual Evaluation of Dysphonic Voices: Can a Training Protocol Lead to the Development of Perceptual Categories? J Voice [Internet]. 2015;29(3):304-11. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2014.07.006 8. Chan KMK, Yiu EM-L. The Effect of Anchors and Training on the Reliability of Perceptual Voice Evaluation. J Speech Lang Hear Res [Internet]. 2002;45(1):111-26. doi: https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2002/009) 9. Altenberg EP, Ferrand CT. Perception of Individuals with Voice Disorders by Monolingual English, Bilingual Cantonese–English, and Bilingual Russian–English Women. J Speech Lang Hear Res [Internet]. 2006;49(4):879-87. doi: https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2006/063) 10. Chaves CR, Campbell M, Côrtes Gama AC. The Influence of Native Language on Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Vocal Samples Completed by Brazilian and Canadian SLPs. J Voice [Internet]. 2017;31(2):258.e1-258.e5. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2016.05.021 11. De Bodt MS, Wuyts FL, Van de Heyning PH, Croux C. Test-retest study of the GRBAS scale: Influence of experience and professional background on perceptual rating of voice quality. J Voice [Internet]. 1997;11(1):74-80. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0892-1997(97)80026-4 12. Eadie TL, Kapsner M, Rosenzweig J, Waugh P, Hillel A, Merati A. The Role of Experience on Judgments of Dysphonia. J Voice [Internet]. 2010;24(5):564-73. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2008.12.005 13. Eadie TL, Kapsner-Smith M. The Effect of Listener Experience and Anchors on Judgments of Dysphonia. J Speech Lang Hear Res [Internet]. 2011;54(2):430-47. doi: https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2010/09-0205) 14. Chan KMK, Yiu EM-L. A Comparison of Two Perceptual Voice Evaluation Training Programs for Naive Listeners. J Voice [Internet]. 2006;20(2):229-41. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2005.03.007 15. Walden PR, Khayumov J. The Use of Auditory-Perceptual Training as a Research Method: A Summary Review. J Voice [Internet]. 2022;36(3):322-34. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2020.06.032 16. Patel S, Shrivastav R, Eddins DA. Developing a Single Comparison Stimulus for Matching Breathy Voice Quality. J Speech Lang Hear Res [Internet]. 2012;55(2):639-47. doi: https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2011/10-0337) 17. Anand S, Kopf LM, Shrivastav R, Eddins DA. Objective Indices of Perceived Vocal Strain. J Voice [Internet]. 2019;33(6):838-45. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2018.06.005 18. Eadie TL, Baylor CR. The Effect of Perceptual Training on Inexperienced Listeners’ Judgments of Dysphonic Voice. J Voice [Internet]. 2006;20(4):527-44. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2005.08.007 19. Sofranko JL, Prosek RA. The Effect of Levels and Types of Experience on Judgment of Synthesized Voice Quality. J Voice [Internet]. 2014;28(1):24-35. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2013.06.001 20. Webb AL, Carding PN, Deary IJ, MacKenzie K, Steen N, Wilson JA. The reliability of three perceptual evaluation scales for dysphonia. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol [Internet]. 2004;261(8):429-34. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-003-0707-7 21. Zraick RI, Kempster GB, Connor NP, Thibeault S, Klaben BK, Bursac Z, et al. Establishing Validity of the Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V). Am J Speech Lang Pathol [Internet]. 2011;20(1):14-22. doi: https://doi.org/10.1044/1058-0360(2010/09-0105) 22. Nagle KF. Emerging Scientist: Challenges to CAPE-V as a Standard. Perspect ASHA SIGs [Internet]. 2016;1(3):47-53. doi: https://doi.org/10.1044/persp1.SIG3.47 23. Shrivastav R, Sapienza CM, Nandur V. Application of Psychometric Theory to the Measurement of Voice Quality Using Rating Scales. J Speech Lang Hear Res [Internet]. 2005;48(2):323-35. doi: https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2005/022) 24. Patel RR, Awan SN, Barkmeier-Kraemer J, Courey M, Deliyski D, Eadie T, et al. Recommended Protocols for Instrumental Assessment of Voice: American Speech-Language-Hearing Association Expert Panel to Develop a Protocol for Instrumental Assessment of Vocal Function. Am J Speech Lang Pathol [Internet]. 2018;27(3):887-905. doi: https://doi.org/10.1044/2018_AJSLP-17-0009 25. Eadie TL, Doyle PC. Direct magnitude estimation and interval scaling of pleasantness and severity in dysphonic and normal speakers. J Acoust Soc Am [Internet]. 2002;112(6):3014-21. doi: https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1518983 26. Iwarsson J, Bingen-Jakobsen A, Johansen DS, Kølle IE, Pedersen SG, Thorsen SL, et al. Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Dysphonia: A Comparison Between Narrow and Broad Terminology Systems. J Voice [Internet]. 2018;32(4):428-36. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2017.07.006 27. Yamauchi EJ, Imaizumi S, Maruyama H, Haji T. Perceptual evaluation of pathological voice quality: A comparative analysis between the RASATI and GRBASI scales. Logopedics Phoniatrics Vocology [Internet]. 2010;35(3):121-8. doi: https://doi.org/10.3109/14015430903334269 28. Maryn Y, Corthals P, Van Cauwenberge P, Roy N, De Bodt M. Toward Improved Ecological Validity in the Acoustic Measurement of Overall Voice Quality: Combining Continuous Speech and Sustained Vowels. J Voice [Internet]. 2010;24(5):540-55. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2008.12.014 29. Maryn Y, Roy N. Sustained vowels and continuous speech in the auditory-perceptual evaluation of dysphonia severity. J Soc Bras Fonoaudiol [Internet]. 2012;24(2):107-12. doi: https://doi.org/10.1590/S2179-64912012000200003 30. Anand S, Skowronski MD, Shrivastav R, Eddins DA. Perceptual and Quantitative Assessment of Dysphonia Across Vowel Categories. J Voice [Internet]. 2019;33(4):473-81. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2017.12.018 31. Delgado Romero C. La identificación de locutores en el ámbito forense [PhD’s thesis]. Madrid: Universidad Complutense de Madrid. 2001. 366 p. Available from: https://docta.ucm.es/handle/20.500.14352/55123 32. dos Santos PCM, Vieira MN, Sansão JPH, Gama ACC. Effect of Auditory-Perceptual Training With Natural Voice Anchors on Vocal Quality Evaluation. J Voice [Internet]. 2019;33(2):220-5. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2017.10.020 33. Solomon NP, Helou LB, Stojadinovic A. Clinical Versus Laboratory Ratings of Voice Using the CAPE-V. J Voice [Internet]. 2011;25(1):e7-14. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2009.10.007 34. Helou LB, Solomon NP, Henry LR, Coppit GL, Howard RS, Stojadinovic A. The Role of Listener Experience on Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V) Ratings of Postthyroidectomy Voice. Am J Speech Lang Pathol [Internet]. 2010;19(3):248-58. doi: https://doi.org/10.1044/1058-0360(2010/09-0012) 35. Cantarella G, Barillari MR, Lechien JR, Pignataro L. The Challenge of Virtual Voice Therapy During the COVID-19 Pandemic. J Voice [Internet]. 2021;35(3):336-7. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2020.06.015 36. Castillo-Allendes A, Contreras-Ruston F, Cantor-Cutiva LC, Codino J, Guzman M, Malebran C, et al. Voice Therapy in the Context of the COVID-19 Pandemic: Guidelines for Clinical Practice. J Voice [Internet]. 2021;35(5):717-27. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2020.08.001 37. Fujiki RB, Sanders PW, Sivasankar MP, Halum S. Determining Medical Urgency of Voice Disorders Using Auditory-Perceptual Voice Assessments Performed by Speech-Language Pathologists. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol [Internet]. 2022;131(6):579-86. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/00034894211032779 38. Dahl KL, Weerathunge HR, Buckley DP, Dolling AS, Díaz-Cádiz M, Tracy LF, et al. Reliability and Accuracy of Expert Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice via Telepractice Platforms. Am J Speech Lang Pathol [Internet]. 2021;30(6):2446-55. doi: https://doi.org/10.1044/2021_AJSLP-21-00091 39. Behrman A. Common Practices of Voice Therapists in the Evaluation of Patients. J Voice [Internet]. 2005;19(3):454-69. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2004.08.004 40. Peña Sánchez MJ, Ángel Gordillo LF, Sastoque Hernández ME, Rodríguez Campo A, Calvache Mora CA. Evaluación Perceptual de la Voz: Resignifcando lo que hacemos. Jornada de teleconferencias nacionales Celebración Día mundial de la voz 2018. Rev Colomb Rehabil [Internet]. 2018;17(1):52-8. doi: https://doi.org/10.30788/RevColReh.v17.n1.2018.322 41. Peña Sánchez MJ. Evaluación perceptual auditiva. Fundamento de la valoración integral de la voz. In: Cecconello LA, editor. Iº Congreso Iberoamericano de voz cantada y hablada [Internet]; 2010 Oct 22-23; Buenos Aires, Argentina: Fundación Iberoamericana de voz cantada y hablada; 2010. p. 32-41. 42. Ma EP-M, Yiu EM-L. Handbook of Voice Assessments. 1st ed. San Diego: Plural Publishing; 2011. 400 p. 43. Hurren A, Miller N, Carding P. Perceptual Assessment of Tracheoesophageal Voice Quality with the SToPS: The Development of a Reliable and Valid Tool. J Voice [Internet]. 2019;33(4):465-72. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2017.12.006 44. Chan KMK, Li M, Law TY, Yiu EML. Effects of immediate feedback on learning auditory perceptual voice quality evaluation. Int J Speech Lang Pathol [Internet]. 2012;14(4):363-9. doi: https://doi.org/10.3109/17549507.2012.679746 45. Hirano M. Clinical examination of voice. Berlin: Springer Verlag; 1981. 100 p. 46. Wilson D. Voice problems of children. Philadelphia: Williams & Wilkins; 1987. 400 p. 47. Heuillet-Martin G, Garson-Bavard H, Legré A. Una voz para todos. SOLAL; 2003. 400 p.
https://riics.info/index.php/RCMC/article/download/238/942
https://riics.info/index.php/RCMC/article/download/238/941
https://riics.info/index.php/RCMC/article/download/238/938
https://riics.info/index.php/RCMC/article/download/238/939
https://riics.info/index.php/RCMC/article/download/238/940
info:eu-repo/semantics/article
http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501
http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_2df8fbb1
http://purl.org/redcol/resource_type/ART
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
http://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a85
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2
Text
Publication

Código QR

Estadísticas y Métricas Alternativas

Títulos similares