Cut-off point for high dysphonia risk in children based on the Child Dysphonia Risk Screening Protocol: preliminary findings

Risk of Dysphonia in Theater Actors: Proposal for a Screening Protocol

OBJECTIVE

To propose a Dysphonia Risk Screening Protocol for Actors (DRSP-A), test its usability in conjunction with the General Dysphonia Risk Screening Protocol (G-DRSP), determine the cut-off point for a high risk of dysphonia in actors, and compare the risk of dysphonia between actors with and without voice disorders.

METHOD

Observational cross-sectional study with 77 professional actors or students. The questionnaires were applied individually and the total scores were summed to calculate the final score of the Dysphonia Risk Screening (DRS-Final). The validity of the questionnaire was verified from the area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve, and cut-offs were obtained based on diagnostic criteria for screening procedures. Voice recordings were collected for auditory-perceptual analysis and subsequent division into groups with and without vocal alteration.

RESULTS

The sample showed a high risk of dysphonia. Higher scores in the G-DRSP and in the DRS-Final were found in the group that presented vocal alteration. The cut-off points established for the DRSP-A and DRS-Final were 0.623 and 0.789, respectively, with higher degrees of sensitivity than specificity. Thus, above these values, the risk of dysphonia is greater.

CONCLUSION

A cut-off value was calculated for the DRSP-A. This instrument was proven to be viable and applicable. The group with vocal alteration had a higher score in the G-DRSP and DRS-Final, but there was no difference in the DRSP-A.

Acoustic voice and spectrographic measures in children with the phonological process of devoicing

INTRODUCTION

Children with speech sound disorders (SSDs) who present the devoicing of plosive and/or fricative sounds may have difficulties with glottal respiratory control.

OBJECTIVE

To analyze acoustic vocal measures, spectrographic aspects and the risk of dysphonia among children with devoicing SDDs and compare the results with those of other groups of children.

METHODS

Twenty-five boys aged between six and 12 years participated. They were divided into four groups: the SSD-devoicing (PPDG), dysphonia (DG), SSDs other than devoicing (PPOG) and control groups (CG). The vocal tasks were recorded, and perceptual-auditory and acoustic voice analyses were performed. The children's parents answered questions about voice-related aspects (to determine a dysphonia risk score). All data were compared among the groups.

RESULTS

Due to the sample size, an effect size analysis was considered, and the results showed possible differences between the PPDG and the other groups in measures of fundamental frequency (F0), jitter, shimmer, harmonic-to-noise ratio, maximum frequency of harmonic definition and dysphonia risk score.

CONCLUSIONS

The PPDG showed a high F0 and abnormal jitter and shimmer values. Although the voices of the children in this group had more harmonics than noise, the maximum frequency for defining the harmonics was very restricted. The PPDG had the lowest dysphonia risk score among all of the groups. Variations in F0, jitter and shimmer may indicate difficulties with controlling vocal adjustments, which appear to be hyperfunctional and not to impact vocal projection or voicing.