CoDAS
https://codas.org.br/article/doi/10.1590/2317-1782/20212021240pt
CoDAS
Revisão Crítica ou Revisão de Escopo

Reducing the GAP between science and clinic: lessons from academia and professional practice - part A: perceptual-auditory judgment of vocal quality, acoustic vocal signal analysis and voice self-assessment

Reduzindo o GAP entre a ciência e a clínica: lições da academia e da prática profissional – parte A: julgamento perceptivo-auditivo da qualidade vocal, análise acústica do sinal vocal e autoavaliação em voz

Mara Behlau; Anna Alice Almeida; Geová Amorim; Patrícia Balata; Sávio Bastos; Mauricéia Cassol; Ana Carolina Constantini; Claudia Eckley; Marina Englert; Ana Cristina Cortes Gama; Ingrid Gielow; Bruno Guimarães; Livia Ribeiro Lima; Leonardo Lopes; Glaucya Madazio; Felipe Moreti; Vanessa Mouffron; Katia Nemr; Priscila Oliveira; Marina Padovani; Vanessa Veis Ribeiro; Kelly Silverio; Thays Vaiano; Rosiane Yamasaki

http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/2317-1782/20212021240pt CoDAS, vol.34, n5, e20210240, 2022
PDF English
PDF Português
PDF
SciELO
Downloads: 2
Views: 939

Abstract

During the XXVIII Brazilian Congress of SBFa, 24 specialists met and, from a leading position on scientific research as a tool for connecting laboratory and clinic, five fronts of knowledge of the voice specialty were discussed as following: Perceptual-auditory judgment of vocal quality; 2. Acoustic analysis of the vocal signal; 3. Voice self-assessment; 4. Traditional techniques of therapy; 5. Modern techniques of electrostimulation and photobiomodulation (PBMT) in voice. Part “a” of this publication was associated with the consolidation of the analyses of the first three aspects. The trend in the perceptual-auditory judgment of vocal quality was related to the use of standard protocols. The acoustic evaluation of the vocal signal is accessible and can be done descriptively or by extraction of parameters, thus preferring multiparametric measures. Finally, the analysis of the individual himself closes this triad of voice documentation, which will be the basis for the conclusion of the evaluation, reference for monitoring progress, and evaluation of treatment results.

Keywords

Voice; Voice Disorder; Voice Quality; Acoustics; Self-test

Resumo

No XXVIII Congresso Brasileiro da SBFa, 24 especialistas reuniram-se e, a partir de um posicionamento condutor sobre pesquisa científica como ferramenta de conexão entre laboratório e clínica, cinco frentes de conhecimento da especialidade de voz foram discutidas: 1. Julgamento perceptivo-auditivo da qualidade vocal; 2. Análise acústica do sinal vocal; 3. Autoavaliação em voz; 4. Técnicas tradicionais de terapia; 5. Técnicas modernas de eletroestimulação e fotobiomodulação em voz. A parte “a” desta publicação é a consolidação das análises dos três primeiros aspectos. A tendência no julgamento perceptivo-auditivo da qualidade vocal é o uso de protocolos padrão. A avaliação acústica do sinal vocal é acessível e pode ser feita de modo descritivo ou por extração de parâmetros, preferindo-se medidas multiparamétricas. Finalmente, a análise do próprio indivíduo fecha essa tríade de documentação fonoaudiológica, que será base para a conclusão da avaliação, referência para monitoramento do progresso e avaliação de resultado de tratamento.

Palavras-chave

Voz; Distúrbio da Voz; Qualidade da Voz; Acústica; Autoteste

Referências

  1. Brasil. Conselho Federal de Fonoaudiologia. Resolução nº 157, de 13 de abril de 1996 [Internet]. Diário Oficial da União; Brasília; 1996 [citado em 2021 Jan 12. Disponível em: htpp://www.fonoaudiologia.org.br/resolucoes/resolucoes_html/CFFa_N_157_96.htm
  2. Behlau M, Carroll L. Vocal rehabilitation or voice therapy at Journal of Voice: a 30-year analysis on publications [Internet]. Philadelphia: The Voice Foundation; 2021 [citado em 2021 Jan 12. Disponível em: https://www.jvoice.org/content/ymvj-voice-rehabilitation-and-voice-therapy
  3. Murad MH. Clinical Practice Guidelines: a primer on development and dissemination. Mayo Clin Proc. 2017;92(3):423-33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mayocp.2017.01.001 PMid:28259229.
  4. Helou L. Crafting the dialogue: meta-therapy in transgender voice and communication training. ASHA Perspectives. 2017;2(10):83-91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1044/persp2.SIG10.83
  5. Iwarsson J. Reflections on clinical expertise and silent know-how in voice therapy. Logoped Phoniatr Vocol. 2015;40(2):66-71. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/14015439.2014.949302 PMid:25110954.
  6. Fernandes FD, Wertzner HF. Competence-based curricula for the education of speech-language pathologists and audiologists in Brazil. Folia Phoniatr Logop. 2014;66(4-5):176-82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000366129 PMid:25790924.
  7. Kara-Junior N. Medicina baseada em evidências. Rev Bras Oftalmol. 2014;73(1):5-6. http://dx.doi.org/10.5935/0034-7280.20140001
  8. Lopes LW, Moreti F, Ribeiro LL, Pereira EC. Fundamentos e atualidades em voz clínica. Rio de Janeiro: Thieme Revinter; 2019.
  9. ASHA: American Speech and Hearing Association. Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) [Internet]. 2020 [citado em 2021 Jan 12. Disponível em: https://www.asha.org/research/ebp/
  10. Group GW. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) [Internet]. 2006 [citado em 2021 Jan 12]. Disponível em: http://www.gradeworkinggroup.org
  11. Murad MH, Asi N, Alsawas M, Alahdab F. New evidence pyramid. BMJ Evid Based Med. 2016;21(4):125-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/ebmed-2016-110401 PMid:27339128.
  12. Medronho RA. Epidemiologia. São Paulo: Atheneu; 2006.
  13. Clinical Trials. Glossary of common site terms [Internet]. United States National Institutes of Health; 2021 [citado em 2021 Jan 12]. Disponível em: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/about-studies/glossary#
  14. Miranda VSG, Marcolino MAZ, Rech RS, Barbosa LR, Fischer GB. Fonoaudiologia baseada em evidências: o papel das revisões sistemáticas. CoDAS. 2019;31(2):e20180167. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/2317-1782/20182018167 PMid:30892421.
  15. Oates J. Auditory-perceptual evaluation of disordered voice quality: pros, cons and future directions. Folia Phoniatr Logop. 2009;61(1):49-56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000200768 PMid:19204393.
  16. Barsties B, De Bodt M. Assessment of voice quality: current state-of-the-art. Auris Nasus Larynx. 2015;42(3):183-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.anl.2014.11.001 PMid:25440411.
  17. Iwarsson J, Sundberg J. Effects of lung volume on vertical larynx position during phonation. J Voice. 1998;12(2):159-65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0892-1997(98)80035-0 PMid:9649071.
  18. Behlau M. The 2016 G. Paul Moore Lecture: Lessons in Voice Rehabilitation: Journal of Voice and Clinical Practice. J Voice. 2019;33(5):669-81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2018.02.020 PMid:29567050.
  19. Santos PCM, Vieira MN, Sansão JPH, Gama ACC. Effect of auditory-perceptual training with natural voice anchors on vocal quality evaluation. J Voice. 2019;33(2):220-5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2017.10.020 PMid:29331406.
  20. Behlau M, Madazio G, Feijó D, Pontes P. Avaliação de voz. In: Behlau M, editor. O livro do especialista. Rio de Janeiro: Revinter; 2001. p. 91.
  21. Duffy JR. Motor speech disorders: substrates, differential diagnosis, and management. 4th ed. St. Louis: Elsevier; 2020. Kindle Edition. The disorders and their diagnoses.
  22. Yamasaki R, Gama ACC. Desafios e referências na avaliação perceptivo-auditiva da voz. In: Lopes L, Moreti F, Ribeiro L, Pereira EC, editores. Fundamentos e atualidades em voz clínica. Rio de Janeiro: Revinter; 2019. p. 9-29.
  23. Brinca L, Batista AP, Tavares AI, Pinto PN, Araújo L. The effect of anchors and training on the reliability of voice quality ratings for different types of speech stimuli. J Voice. 2015;29(6):776.e7-14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2015.01.007 PMid:25795348.
  24. Hirano M. Clinical examination of voice. New York: Springer-Verlag; 1981.
  25. 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. 2009;18(2):124-32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1044/1058-0360(2008/08-0017) PMid:18930908.
  26. Freitas SV, Pestana PM, Almeida V, Ferreira A. Audio-perceptual evaluation of Portuguese voice disorders - an inter - and intrajudge reliability study. J Voice. 2014;28(2):210-5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2013.08.001 PMid:24050822.
  27. Padovani M, Diaferia G. Disfonias neurológicas: diagnóstico diferencial. In: Lopes LW, Moreti F, Ribeiro LL, Pereira EC, editores. Fundamentos e atualidades em voz clínica. Rio de Janeiro: Thieme Revinter; 2019. p. 105-17.
  28. Solomon NP, Helou LB, Stojadinovic A. Clinical versus laboratory ratings of voice using the CAPE-V. J Voice. 2011;25(1):e7-14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2009.10.007 PMid:20430573.
  29. Eadie T, Sroka A, Wright DR, Merati A. Does knowledge of medical diagnosis bias auditory-perceptual judgments of dysphonia? J Voice. 2011;25(4):420-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2009.12.009 PMid:20347262.
  30. Costa FP, Yamasaki R, Behlau M. Influence of clinical context in characterization of severity of vocal deviation. Audiol Commun Res. 2014;19(1):69-74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S2317-64312014000100012
  31. Baken RJ. Introduction. In: Baken RJ, editor. Clinical measurement of speech and voice. 1. ed. Boston: College Hill Press; 1987. p. 1-5.
  32. Bodt M, Heylen L. Stemstoornissen: hanboek voor de kliniche paktijk. Antwerpen: Garant; 2014. HetLogopedisch stemonderzoek; p. 115-47.
  33. Chan KM, Yiu EM. The effects of anchors and training on the reliability of perceptual voice evaluation. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2002;45(1):111-26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2002/009) PMid:14748643.
  34. Bele I. Reliability in perceptual analysis of voice quality. J Voice. 2005;19(4):555-73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2004.08.008 PMid:16301102.
  35. Askenfelt AG, Hammarberg B. Speech waveform perturbation analysis: a perceptual-acoustical comparison of seven measures. J Speech Hear Res. 1986;29(1):50-64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1044/jshr.2901.50 PMid:3702379.
  36. Maryn Y, Roy N, De Bodt M, van Cauwenberge P, Corthals P. Acoustic measurement of overall voice quality: a meta-analysis. J Acoust Soc Am. 2009;126(5):2619-34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.3224706 PMid:19894840.
  37. 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. 2010;24(5):540-55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2008.12.014 PMid:19883993.
  38. Titze IR. Workshop on acoustic voice analysis: summary statement. Iowa City: National Center for Voice and Speech; 1995.
  39. Brockmann M, Drinnan MJ, Storck C, Carding PN. Reliable jitter and shimmer measurements in voice clinics: the relevance of vowel, gender, vocal intensity, and fundamental frequency effects in a typical clinical task. J Voice. 2011;25(1):44-53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2009.07.002 PMid:20381308.
  40. Baken RJ. Sound spectrography. In: Baken RJ, editor. Clinical measurement of speech and voice. 1st ed. Boston: College Hill Press; 1987. p. 315-92.
  41. Lopes L, Vieira V, Behlau M. Performance of different acoustic measures to discriminate individuals with and without voice disorders. J Voice. 2022;36(4):487-98. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2020.07.008 PMid:32798120.
  42. Lopes LW, Alves GAS, Melo ML. Content evidence of a spectrographic analysis protocol. Rev CEFAC. 2017;19(4):510-28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1982-021620171942917
  43. Lopes LW, Silva ACF, Silva IM, Paiva MAA, Silva SIDN, Almeida LNA, et al. Evidence of internal consistency in the spectrographic analysis protocol. J Voice. 2022;36(4):445-56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2020.07.013 PMid:32782177.
  44. Bastilha GR, Pagliarin KC, Moraes DAO, Cielo CA. Spectrographic Vocal Assessment Protocol (SVAP): reliability and criterion validity. J Voice. 2021;35(6):931.e1-14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2020.02.017 PMid:32209278.
  45. Watts CR, Awan SN, Maryn Y. A comparison of Cepstral Peak Prominence Measures From Two Acoustic Analysis Program. J Voice. 2017;31(3):387.e1-10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2016.09.012 PMid:27751661.
  46. 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. 2018;27(3):887-905. http://dx.doi.org/10.1044/2018_AJSLP-17-0009 PMid:29955816.
  47. Englert M, von Latoszek BB, Maryn Y, Behlau M. Validation of the Acoustic Voice Quality Index, Version 03.01, to the Brazilian Portuguese Language. J Voice. 2021;35(1):160.e15-21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2019.07.024 PMid:31474432.
  48. Englert M. Validação do Acoustic Voice Quality Index (AVQI) e do Acoustic Breathiness Index (ABI) para o português brasileiro [tese]. São Paulo: Programa de Pós-graduação em Distúrbios da Comunicação Humana, Escola Paulista de Medicina, Universidade Federal de São Paulo; 2020.
  49. Gasparini G, Behlau M. Quality of life: validation of the Brazilian version of the voice-related quality of life (V-RQOL) measure. J Voice. 2009;23(1):76-81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2007.04.005 PMid:17628396.
  50. Behlau M, Azevedo R, Pontes P. Conceito de voz normal e classificação das disfonias. In: Behlau M, editor. Voz o livro do especialista. Rio de Janeiro: Revinter; 2004. p. 53-79. (vol. 1).
  51. van der Ende J, Verhulst FC, Tiemeier H. Agreement of informants on emotional and behavioral problems from childhood to adulthood. Psychol Assess. 2012;24(2):293-300. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0025500 PMid:21928910.
  52. Connor NP, Cohen SB, Theis SM, Thibeault SL, Heatley DG, Bless DM. Attitudes of children with dysphonia. J Voice. 2008;22(2):197-209. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2006.09.005 PMid:17512168.
  53. Verduyckt I, Remacle M, Jamart J, Benderitter C, Morsomme D. Voice: related complaints in the pediatric population. J Voice. 2011;25(3):373-80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2009.11.008 PMid:20359863.
  54. Wolpert M. UUses and abuses of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs): potential iatrogenic impact of PROMs implementation and how it can be mitigated. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2014;41(2):141-5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10488-013-0509-1 PMid:23867978.
  55. Goulart BNG, Chiari BM. Testes de rastreamento x testes de diagnóstico: atualidades no contexto da atuação fonoaudiológica. Pró-Fono R Atual Cient. 2007;19(2):223-32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0104-56872007000200011
  56. Behlau M, Santos LMA, Oliveira G. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the voice handicap index into brazilian portuguese. J Voice. 2011;25(3):354-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2009.09.007 PMid:20434874.
  57. Teixeira LC, Rodrigues ALV, Silva AFG, Azevedo R, Gama ACC, Behlau M. Escala URICA-VOZ para identificação de estágios de adesão ao tratamento de voz. CoDAS. 2013;25(1):8-15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S2317-17822013000100003 PMid:24408164.
  58. Rodrigues G, Zambon F, Mathieson L, Behlau M. Vocal tract discomfort in teachers: its relationship to self-reported voice disorders. J Voice. 2013;27(4):473-80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2013.01.005 PMid:23528674.
  59. Ricarte A, Oliveira G, Behlau M. Validação do protocolo Perfil de Participação e Atividades Vocais no Brasil. CoDAS. 2013;25(3):242-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S2317-17822013000300009 PMid:24408335.
  60. Moreti F, Zambon F, Oliveira G, Behlau M. Cross-cultural adaptation, validation, and cutoff values of the Brazilian version of the Voice Symptom Scale-VoiSS. J Voice. 2014;28(4):458-68. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2013.11.009 PMid:24560004.
  61. Oliveira G, Hirani SP, Epstein R, Yazigi L, Behlau M. Validation of the brazilian version of the Voice Disability Coping Questionnaire. J Voice. 2016;30(2):247.e13-21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2015.01.004 PMid:26474711.
  62. Zambon F, Moreti F, Ribeiro VV, Nanjundeswaran C, Behlau M. Vocal fatigue index: validation and cut-off values of the Brazilian version. J Voice. 2022;36(3):434.e17-24. PMid:32693976.
  63. Moreti F, Rocha C, Borrego MCM, Behlau M. Desvantagem vocal no canto: análise do protocolo Índice de Desvantagem para o Canto Moderno - IDCM. Rev Soc Bras Fonoaudiol. 2011;16(2):146-51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1516-80342011000200007
  64. Ávila MEB, Oliveira G, Behlau M. Índice de Desvantagem Vocal no Canto Clássico (IDCC) em cantores eruditos. Pró-Fono R Atual Cient. 2010;22(3):221-6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0104-56872010000300011
  65. Ribeiro LL, Paula KMP, Behlau M. Qualidade de Vida em Voz na População Pediátrica: validação da versão brasileira do Protocolo Qualidade de Vida em Voz Pediátrico. CoDAS. 2014;26(1):87-95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/s2317-17822014000100013 PMid:24714864.
  66. Santos HHANM, Aguiar AGO, Baeck E, van Borsel J. Tradução e avaliação preliminar da versão em Português do Questionário de Autoavaliação Vocal para Transexuais de Homem para Mulher. CoDAS. 2015;27(1):89-96. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/2317-1782/20152014093 PMid:25885202.
  67. Pernambuco L, Espelt A, Magalhães HV Jr, Lima KC. Recomendações para elaboração, tradução, adaptação transcultural e processo de validação de testes em Fonoaudiologia. CoDAS. 2017;29(3):e20160217. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/2317-1782/20172016217 PMid:28614460.
  68. Ribeiro LL, Verduyckt I, Behlau M. Sintomas vocais na população pediátrica: validação da versão brasileira do questionário de sintomas vocais pediátrico. CoDAS. 2019;31(5):e20180225. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/2317-1782/20192018225 PMid:31644718.
  69. Behlau M, Oliveira G, Santos LMA, Ricarte A. Validação no Brasil de protocolos de auto-avaliação do impacto de uma disfonia. Pró-Fono R Atual Cient. 2009;21(4):326-32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0104-56872009000400011
  70. Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine. 2000;25(24):3186-91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200012150-00014 PMid:11124735.
  71. Muñiz J, Elosua P, Hambleton RK. Directrices para la traducción y adaptación de los tests: segunda edición. Psicothema. 2013;25(2):151-7. PMid:23628527.
  72. AERA: American Educational Research Association. APA: American Psychological Association. NCME: National Council on Measurement in Education. Standards for educational and psychological testing. New York: AERA; 2014.
  73. Branski RC, Cukier-Blaj S, Pusic A, Cano SJ, Klassen A, Mener D, et al. Measuring quality of life in dysphonic patients: A systematic review of content development in patient-reported outcomes measures. J Voice. 2010;24(2):193-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2008.05.006 PMid:19185454.
  74. Bogaardt HCA, Hakkesteegt MM, Grolman W, Lindeboom R. Validation of the Voice Handicap Index using Rasch analysis. J Voice. 2007;21(3):337-44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2005.09.007 PMid:16504469.
  75. Deary IJ, Wilson JA, Carding PN, MacKenzie K, Watson R. From dysphonia to dysphoria: mokken scaling shows a strong, reliable hierarchy of voice symptoms in the Voice Symptom Scale questionnaire. J Psychosom Res. 2010;68(1):67-71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychores.2009.06.008 PMid:20004302.
  76. Nanjundeswaran C, van Mersbergen M, Morgan K. Restructuring the vocal fatigue index using mokken scaling: insights into the complex nature of vocal fatigue. J Voice. 2019;33(1):110-4. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2017.09.008 PMid:29122416.
  77. Wulff NB, Møller PR, Christensen KB, Pedersen SG, Wessel I, Dalton SO, et al. The Voice-Related Quality of Life (V-RQOL) instrument: cross-cultural translation and test of validity and reliability of the Danish version. J Voice. 2021;35(5):806.e7-14. PMid:32059919.
  78. Pasquali L. TRI – Teoria de Resposta ao Item: Teoria de procedimentos e aplicações. Curitiba: Appris; 2007.
  79. Andrade JM, Laros JA, Gouveia VV. O uso da teoria de resposta ao item em avaliações educacionais: diretrizes para pesquisadores. Aval Psicol. 2010;9(3):421-35.
  80. Castro SMJ, Trentini C, Riboldi J. Teoria da resposta ao item aplicada ao Inventário de Depressão de Beck. Rev Bras Epidemiol. 2010;13(3):487-501. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1415-790X2010000300012 PMid:20857035.
  81. Alencar SAL, Santos JP, Almeida LN, Nascimento JA, Lopes LW, Almeida AA. Factorial analysis of the Brazilian version of the Vocal Tract Discomfort Scale in patients with dysphonia. J Voice. 2022;36(1):144.e11-20. PMid:32600869.
  82. Alencar SAL. A teoria de resposta ao item na avaliação de sintomas sensoriais na disfonia [dissertação]. João Pessoa: Universidade Federal da Paraíba; 2019.
  83. Aguiar AC, Almeida LN, Pernambuco L, Palhano DB, Andrade JM, Behlau M, et al. Stages of readiness in patients with dysphonia: a proposal based on factor analysis using the URICA-V scale. J Voice. 2020;34(4):547-58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2018.12.004 PMid:30595237.
  84. Aguiar AC, Almeida LN, Pernambuco LA, Ramos NS, Andrade JM, Behlau M, et al. Urica-VV Scale: a new research perspective of the stage of readiness for treatment in patients with dysphonia. J Voice. 2021. In press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2021.06.004. PMid:34272143.
  85. Almeida LN, Behlau M, Ramos NS, Barbosa IK, Almeida AA. Factor analysis of the Brazilian Version of the Voice-Related Quality of Life (V-RQOL) Questionnaire. J Voice. 2020. No prelo. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2020.08.033 PMid:32981810.
  86. Almeida LN, Almeida AA. Autoavaliação dos sintomas vocais e estratégias de enfrentamento na disfonia: nova perspectiva com base na Teoria de Resposta ao Item. In: V Congresso Íbero-Americano; XXVIII Congresso Brasileiro de Fonoaudiologia On-line; 2020. Anais. São Paulo: Sociedade Brasileira de Fonoaudiologia; 2020. p. 1. (vol. 1).
  87. Ramos NS. Validação do índice de desvantagem vocal com base na teoria de resposta ao item [dissertação]. João Pessoa: Universidade Federal da Paraíba; 2020.
  88. Barbosa IK. Validação brasileira da Escala de Controle Percebido no Presente sobre a Voz (ECPP-V) com base na teoria de resposta ao item [dissertação]. João Pessoa: Universidade Federal da Paraíba; 2020.
  89. Pritchard MJ. Making effective clinical decisions: a framework for nurse practitioners. Br J Nurs. 2006;15(3):128-30. http://dx.doi.org/10.12968/bjon.2006.15.3.20507 PMid:16493316.
  90. Roy N, Barkmeier-Kraemer J, Eadie T, Sivasankar MP, Mehta D, Paul D, et al. Evidence-based clinical voice assessment: a systematic review. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2013;22(2):212-26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1044/1058-0360(2012/12-0014) PMid:23184134.
  91. Kreiman J, Gerratt BR, Ito M. When and why listeners disagree in voice quality assessment tasks. J Acoust Soc Am. 2007;122(4):2354-64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.2770547 PMid:17902870.
  92. Englert M, Madazio G, Gielow I, Lucero J, Behlau M. Influência do fator de aprendizagem na análise perceptivo-auditiva. CoDAS. 2018;30(3):e20170107. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/2317-1782/20182017107 PMid:29898037.
  93. Paiva MAA, Rosa MRD, Gielow I, Silva IM, Sousa ESS, Silva ACF, et al. Auditory skills as a predictor of rater reliability in the evaluation of vocal quality. J Voice. 2021;35(4):559-69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2019.11.020 PMid:31879240.
  94. Takishima M, Gielow I, Madazio G, Behlau M. The impact of vocal tuning in the perceptual auditory judgment of normal and deviated voice qualities. CoDAS. 2020;32(4):e20190135. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/2317-1782/20202019135 PMid:32813819.
  95. Buder EH. Acoustic analysis of voice quality: a tabulation of algorithms 1902-1990. In Kent RD, Ball MJ, editores. Voice quality measurement. San Diego: Singular; 2000. p. 119-244.
  96. Bastian RW, Keidar A, Verdolini-Marston K. Simple vocal task for detecting vocal fold swelling. J Voice. 1990;4(2):172-83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0892-1997(05)80144-4
  97. Snell EN, Plexico LW, Weaver AJ, Sandage MJ. Quantifying vocal power: correlation of whole-body anaerobic power to vocal function measures. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2020;63(8):2597-608. http://dx.doi.org/10.1044/2020_JSLHR-20-00110 PMid:32692587.
  98. Florencio VO, Almeida AA, Balata P, Nascimento S, Brockmann-Bauser M, Lopes LW. Differences and reliability of linear and nonlinear acoustic measures as a function of vocal intensity in individuals with voice disorders. J Voice. 2021. No prelo. PMid:34116889.
  99. Almeida LNA. Autoavaliação dos sintomas vocais e estratégias de enfrentamento na disfonia: nova perspectiva com base na teoria de resposta ao item [tese]. João Pessoa: Universidade Federal da Paraíba: 2020.
  100. Peixoto JM, Santos SMO, Faria RMD. Processos de desenvolvimento do raciocínio clínico em estudantes de medicina. Rev Bras Educ Med. 2018;42(1):70-81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1981-52712015v41n4rb20160079
     
62f05e59a95395545a01f2f3 codas Articles
2317-1782 (Eletrônico)
CoDAS ©2024 Todos os direitos reservados.

CoDAS

Share this page
Page Sections