SES HİJYENİ ÖNERİLERİNİN ÖĞRETMENLERİN SES KALİTESİNE OLAN ETKİSİNİN ELEKTROGLOTTOGRAFİ (EGG) İLE DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ

Year 2016, Volume: 2 Issue: 4, 149 - 155, 22.04.2016

Dilşat Genç Mesut Kaya Mehmet Gündüz

https://doi.org/10.18768/ijaedu.87370

Abstract

TITLE: Evaluation of the Outcome of Voice Hygiene on Teachers’ Voice Quality Using Electroglottograpy (Egg)

Objective: The purpose of this study is evolution of the outcome of voice hygiene advice on teachers’ voice quality by comparing the objective results obtained by using acoustic analysis, and subjective results obtained by using survey and Voice Handicap Index (VHI) scores in pre-voice hygiene education and 4 weeks after completion of the training.

Materials and Methods: In the teachers working in the schools and private teaching institutions in Ankara, 20 female and 12 male (32 total) teachers received voice hygiene education and formed the study group. 18 female and 20 male (38 total) teachers formed the control group and did not received voice hygiene education. VHI of all teachers were determined and objective voice parameters were measured with electroglottography, then the values of before and after (4 weeks) voice hygiene education were compared. Acoustic analysis included Fundamental Frequency (F0), %Jitter, %Shimmer, Maximum Phonation Time (MPT) parameters.

Results: Statistically significant reductions were found in VHI scores after voice hygiene education. Before and after hygiene education, a statistically significant difference was obtained between MPT values among the teachers of experimental group. MPT increased after voice hygiene education for male and female teachers. No significant difference is detected between the fundamental frequency (F0), Jitter% parameters after voice hygiene. Statistically significant differences are observed Shimmer% parameters between the experimental group those given voice hygiene education and the control group.

Conclusion: When we evaluate obtained data as a result of our work, it is observed that teachers have benefits of having voice hygiene education which should be included their vocational training programs.

Keywords: Teachers, voice quality, voice hygiene education, Electroglottograpy, voice analysis.

References

• Koufman J.A. (1995). ‘What Are Voice Disorders And Whagets Them? ‘ htt:/ www.bgsm. edu/voice disorders.html
• Tekışık H.H. (1987). ‘Türkiyede Öğretmenlik Mesleği ve Sorunları’ Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi 1987.Ankara
• Yiu Em. (2002). ‘İmpact and Prevention of Voice Problems In the Teaching Profession. Embracing The Consumer’s Viem.’ J Voice.2002; 16:215-28
• Çağlar G. Konuşma İle Ses Bozuklukları İleri Tanı Ve Terapi Yöntemleri..Ders Notları (Ders Sorumlu Doç. Dr. Soner ÖZKAN) sy.2-3
• Leith W. R, Jonston R. G.(1986). Handbook of Voice Therapy for the School Clinician. 1nd, San Diego: College- Hill Press, 1986.
• Morton V, Watson DR. (2001). Voice in the classroom; in Dejonckere PH (ed): Occupational Voice: Care and Cure. The Hague, Kugler Publications, pp 53–69. 26
• Scrimgeour K, Meyer E. (2002). Effectiveness of a hearing conservation and vocal hygiene program for kindergarten children. Special Services in the School 2002; 18 (1-2):133-50.
• Chan RWK. (1994). Does the voice ımprove with vocal hygiene education? a study of some ınstrumental voice measures in a group of ındergarden teachers, J Voice 1994; 8: 279-91.
• Jacobson BH, Johnson A, Grywalski C, Silbergleit A, Jacobson G, Benninger MS, Newman CW. (1997). et al. The Voice Handicap Index Development and Validation, Am J Speech Language Pathalogy, 1997; 6: 66–70.
• Hirano M. (1989). ‘Objektive Evaluation of The Human Voice.’ Clinical Aspects, Folia Phoniotr: 41, 1989; 89-144.
• Giovanni A, Revis J, Triglia JM. (1999). Objective aerodynamic and acoustic measurment of voice improvement after phono surgery. Laryngoscope, 1999; 109:656-60.
• Hirano M., Hibi S., Yoshida T., Hirode Y., Kasuya , H., Kikuchi Y.(1988). ‘Acoustic Anaysis Of Pathological Voice.’ Acto. Otolaryngol. (Stockh), 105:432-438, 1988
• Simberg S. Ve Ark.(2005).’ Changes in The Prevalence Of Vocal Symptoms Among Teachers During A Twelveyear Periad.’ J Voice .2005;19.95-102.
• Sazak N.(2007). ‘İlköğretim Okullarında Görev Yapan Öğretmenlerin Ses Sağlığı Ve Korumasına İlişkin Görüşleri.’ İnönü Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi 7(13),69-86 (2007)
• Kılıç MA, Okur E.(2001). CSL ve Dr. Speech ile Ölçülen Temel Frekans ve Pertürbasyon Değerlerinin Karşılaştırılması. KBB ihtis Derg 2001; 8: 152-157.
• Bovo R, Galceran M, Petruccelli j, Hatzopoulos S.(2007). ‘Vocal problems among teachers: evalvation of a preventive voice program.’ J Voice. 2007; 21:705722.
• Karagöz İ ,Yılmaz M. (2004). Türkçe seslerin akustik analizi. istanbul: Biyomedikal Mühendisliği Ulusal Toplantısı; 2004.
• Gregg JW. (1997) The Singing/acting mature adult-singing instruction perspective. J Voice 1997: 11; 165-170.
• Bistritsky Y, Fran Y. (1981). Efficacy of voice and speech training of prospective elemantary school teachers, Israile J Speech Hear 1981; 10: 1 6-32.