Dil Konuşma ve Yutma Araştırmaları Dergisi

Yazarlar: Gamze YEŞİLLİ, M. Kürşat YELKEN, Seymanur OK, Bedirye KAYGISIZ, Edanur KESKİN, Cansu ALPAY

Konular:-

Anahtar Kelimeler:Multi-Dimentional Voice Program,Speech and language therapy students,Audiology students,Acoustic voice analysis,Vocal abuse

Özet: Introduction: University students are shown among one of the foremost groups from the aspect of vocal abuse. Speech and language therapy (SLT) students, during their studies, are required to have courses on speech, language, and voice production, anatomy and physiology, voice disorders and treatment. In this study, acoustic voice analysis result of SLT, and audiology department students is compared with the assumption that the awareness of SLT students on vocal abuse could be higher than that of audiology students as a result of the education SLT students have. Method: The aim of this study was to compare the acoustic analysis results of first, second, and third year female students in speech and language therapy undergraduate program (SLTUP), 1 Sorumlu Yazar, Arş. Gör., Üsküdar Üniversitesi, [email protected] Prof. Dr., Voicest Kliniği, [email protected] Stajyer DKT, Üsküdar Üniversitesi, [email protected] Stajyer DKT, Üsküdar Üniversitesi, [email protected] Stajyer DKT, Üsküdar Üniversitesi, [email protected] Stajyer DKT, Üsküdar Üniversitesi, [email protected] third year female students in audiology undergraduate program (AUP) using Multi-Dimentional Voice Program (MDVP) (KayPENTAX, 2008). The participants of this study include 21 first year, 23 second year, and 22 third year SLTUP students, and 16 AUP students (see Table 1). Voice records were taken in Üsküdar University Speech and Language Therapy Phonetic Lab using MDVP (KayPENTAX, 2008). The participants were asked to produce /a/ phonation for 5 seconds, and 3 middle seconds of each record were analyzed. Results and discussion: The results showed that there was a significant difference between F0 results of third year SLTUP and third year AUP students (Table 2); significant difference on F0, jitter (%), Pitch Perturbation Quotient (PPQ), Amplitude Perturbation Quotient (APQ) results of second year SLTUP and third year AUP students (see Table 3); significant difference on F0, jitter (%) and, PPQ results of first year SLTUP and third year AUP students (see Table 4). The results of the study revealed that SLTUP students have better jitter (%), PPQ, APQ results in comparison with AUP students. These results seem to confirm the idea that as a result of the education on voice disorders, vocal misuse, appropriate voice use, and vocal health that SLTUP students have been given, first and second year SLT students have better better jitter (%), PPQ, APQ values compared to third year AUP students. However, the fact that there was no significant difference between third year SLP and third year audiology students on voice quality parameters is thought to be a consequence of the vocal burden of third year SLP students resulting from their clinical practice period

---