Advertisement

Cultural Competency in Voice Evaluation: Considerations of Normative Standards for Sociolinguistically Diverse Voices

Published:October 12, 2020DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2020.09.025

      Summary

      Aim

      Significant differences exist in anatomical, acoustic, and aerodynamic parameters for nonspeech tasks between culturally and linguistically diverse sample populations. There is a need for expansion of the normative acoustic data to include sociolinguistically diverse groups to ensure that clinical objective measurements are accurately classifying the voice quality of all individuals. This study examined objective measures of voice quality assessment of monolingual speakers of Standard American English (SAE) with sequential bilingual, native (L1) French and Spanish speakers on perturbation, noise, spectral/cepstral analyses, and compared ratings on auditory-perceptual assessment with acoustic data secondary to degree of accentedness.

      Method

      Thirty speakers with normal voice quality were rated on the Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice scale. Voice quality measures were analyzed using the Multi-Dimensional Voice Program and Analysis of Dysphonia in Speech and Voice. A measure of accentedness of SAE was calculated using an informal task by two evaluators.

      Results

      Objective acoustic measures of jitter and all-voiced cepstral peak prominence were statistically significant between SAE speakers and L1 Spanish and French speakers. SAE speakers demonstrated significantly higher group mean cepstral peak prominence for the all-voiced sentence (“We were away a year ago.”) than native French and Spanish speakers. There were no significant differences in perception of voice quality and acoustic measures secondary to degree of accentedness of the non-native SAE speakers.

      Conclusion

      It is important to engage and strengthen voice diagnostic measures to support culturally competent service delivery for the diversifying clinical population. Normative databases established on SAE speakers should reflect the statistically significant differences evidenced between diverse sociolinguistic populations in anatomical, auditory-perceptual, aerodynamic, and acoustical parameters.

      Key Words

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Journal of Voice
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      REFERENCES

      1. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. Issues in ethics: Cultural and linguistic competence. 2017. Available at: www.asha.org/Practice/ethics/Cultural-and-Linguistic-Competence/. Accessed March 20, 2019.

      2. United States Census Bureau. Age by language spoken at home by ability to speak English for the population 5 years and older. [Data file]. 2017. Available at:https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_15_SPT_B16004&prodType=table. Accessed May 30, 2018

        • Roy N
        • Merril RN
        • Gray SD
        • et al.
        Voice disorders in the general population: prevalence, risk factors and occupational impact.
        Laryngoscope. 2005; 115: 1988-1995
        • Owens R
        Language Development: An Introduction.
        9th ed. Pearson Education, New York2015
        • Awan SN
        • Mueller P.
        Speaking fundamental frequency characteristics of white, African American, and Hispanic kindergartners.
        J Speech Lang Hearing Res. 1996; 39: 573
        • Berg M
        • Fuchs M
        • Wirkner K
        • et al.
        The speaking voice in the general population: normative data and associations to sociodemographic and lifestyle factors.
        J Voice. 2017; 31: 257.e13-257.e24https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2016.06.001
        • Xue S
        • Hao J.
        Normative standards for vocal tract dimensions by race as measured by acoustic pharyngometry.
        J Voice. 2006; 20: 391-400
        • Morgan NJ
        • MacGregor FB
        • Birchall MA
        • et al.
        Racial differences in nasal fossa dimensions determined by acoustic rhinometry.
        Rhinology. 1995; 33: 224-228
        • Corey J
        • Gungor A
        • Liu X
        • et al.
        Normative standards for nasal cross-sectional areas by race as measured by acoustic rhinometry.
        Otolaryngol-Head Neck Surg. 1998; 119: 389-393
        • Roy N
        • Barkmeier-Kraemer J
        • Eadie T
        • et al.
        Evidence-based clinical voice assessment: a systematic review.
        Am J Speech-Lang Pathol. 2013; 10 (1044/1058-0360(2012/12-0014)): 212-226
        • Patel RR
        • Awan SN
        • Barkmeier-Kraemer J
        • 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: 887-905
        • Awan SN
        • Roy N
        • Cohen S
        Exploring the relationship between spectral and cepstral measures of voice and the Voice Handicap Index (VHI).
        J Voice. 2014; 28: 430-439https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2013.12.008
        • Baken RJ
        • Orlikoff RF
        Clinical Measurement of Speech and Voice. Cengage Learning, Clifton Park, NY2010
        • Zraick RI
        • Smith-Olinde L
        • Shotts LL
        Adult normative data for the KayPENTAX phonatory aerodynamic system model 6600.
        J Voice. 2012; 26: 164-176
        • Hirano M.
        Clinical Examination of Voice.
        Springer, New York1981
        • Kempster GB
        • Gerratt BR
        • Verdolini Abbot K
        • et al.
        Consensus auditory-perceptual evaluation of voice: development of a standardized clinical protocol.
        Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2009; 18: 124-132
        • Jarvinen K
        • Laukkanen A-M
        • Geneid A
        Voice quality in native and foreign languages investigated by inverse filtering and perceptual analyses.
        J Voice. 2017; 31: 261.e25-261.e31
        • Yamaguchi H
        • Shrivastav R
        • Andrews ML
        • et al.
        A comparison of voice quality ratings made by Japanese and American listeners using the GRBAS scale.
        Folia Phoniatrica Logopaedica. 2003; 55: 147-157
        • Ghio A
        • Cantarella G
        • Weisz F
        • et al.
        Is the perception of dysphonia severity language-dependent? A comparison of French and Italian voice assessments.
        Logopedics Phoniatrics Vocol. 2013; 40: 36-43
      3. Behlau M, Yamaguchi H, Andrews ML. Escala GRBAS em três diferentes culturas. Proceedings of the 9th Brazilian Congress of Speech Language Pathology and Audiology, Guarapari, ES, Brazil, 586; 2001.

        • Giles H
        Evaluative reactions to accents.
        Educ Rev. 1970; 22: 211-227
        • Wells J.
        Accents of English.
        Cambridge University Press, Cambridge2012
        • Andrianopoulos MV
        • Darrow KN
        • Chen J
        Multimodal standardization of voice among four multicultural populations: fundamental frequency and spectral characteristics.
        J Voice. 2001; 15: 194-219
        • Trofimovich P
        • Baker W.
        Learning second language suprasegmentals: effect of L2 experience on prosody and fluency characteristics of L2 speech.
        Stud Second Lang Acquisition. 2006; 28: 1-30https://doi.org/10.1017/s0272263106060013
        • Piske T
        • MacKay I
        • Flege J
        Factors affecting degree of foreign accent in an L2: a review.
        J Phonetics. 2001; 29: 191-215
        • Derwing TM
        • Munro MJ.
        Accent, intelligibility, and comprehensibility: evidence from four L1s.
        Stud Second Lang Acquisition. 1997; 19: 1-16
        • Munro MJ
        • Derwing TM
        Foreign accent, comprehensibility, and intelligibility in the speech of second language learners.
        Lang Learn. 1995; 45: 73-97
        • Fuse A
        • Navichkova Y
        • Alloggio K
        Perception of intelligibility and qualities of non-native accented speakers.
        J Commun Disord. 2018; 71: 37-51
        • Carlson H
        • McHenry MA.
        Effect of accent and dialect on employability.
        J Employment Counsel. 2006; 43: 70-83
        • Flege JE.
        Factors affecting degree of perceived foreign accent in English sentences.
        J Acoust Soc Am. 1988; 84: 70-79
        • Ng M
        • Chen Y
        • Chan E
        Differences in vocal characteristics between Cantonese and English produced by proficient Cantonese-English bilingual speakers—a long-term average spectral analysis.
        J Voice. 2012; 26: 171-176
        • Bahmanbiglu SA
        • Mojiri F
        • Abnavi F
        The impact of language on voice: an LTAS study.
        J Voice. 2017; 31: 249.e9-249.e12
        • Cantor-Cutiva LC
        • Bottalico P
        • Nudelman C
        • et al.
        Do voice acoustic parameters differ between bilingual English-Spanish speakers and monolingual English speakers during English production?.
        J Voice. 2019; (In press)https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvoice.2019.08.009
        • Esling J
        • Wong R.
        Voice quality settings and the teaching of pronunciation.
        TESOL Quart. 1983; 17: 89-95https://doi.org/10.2307/3586426
        • Awan SN.
        Analysis of Dysphonia in Speech and Voice (ADSV): An Application Guide.
        Pentax Medical, Montvale, NJ2011
        • Dejonckere P
        • Bradley Patrick
        • Clemente Pais
        • et al.
        A basic protocol for functional assessment of voice pathology, especially for investigating the efficacy of (phonosurgical) treatments and evaluating new assessment techniques – guideline elaborated by the Committee on Phoniatrics of the European Laryngological Society (ELS).
        Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2001; 258: 77-82
        • Gillespie A
        • Dastolfo C
        • Magid N
        • et al.
        Acoustic analysis of four common voice diagnoses: moving toward disorder-specific assessment.
        J Voice. 2014; 28: 582-588
        • Watts C
        • Awan SN
        • Maryn Y
        A comparison of Cepstral Peak Prominence measures from two acoustic analysis programs.
        J Voice. 2017; 31: 387.e1-387.e10
      4. Pentax Medical. Software Instruction Manual, Multi-Dimensional Voice Program (MDVP) Model 5105 (2008). Montvale, NJ: Pentax Medical.

        • Malki KH
        • Al-Habib SF
        • Hagr AA
        • et al.
        Acoustic analysis of normal Saudi adult voices.
        Saudi Med J. 2009; 30: 1081-1086
        • Awan SR
        • Roy N
        • Jetté M
        • et al.
        Quantifying dysphonia severity using a spectral/cepstral-based acoustic index: comparisons with auditory-perceptual judgements from the CAPE-V.
        Clin Linguis Phon. 2010; 24: 742-758https://doi.org/10.3109/02699206.2010.492446
        • Watts CR.
        The effect of CAPE-V sentences on cepstral/spectral measures in dysphonic speakers.
        Folia Poniatr Logop. 2015; 67: 15-20
        • Styler W.
        On the acoustical features of vowel nasality in English and French.
        J Acoust Soc Am. 2017; 142: 2469-2482https://doi.org/10.1121/1.5008854
        • Garellek M
        • Ritchart A
        • Kuang J
        Breathy voice during nasality: a cross-linguistic study.
        J Phonetics. 2018; 59: 110-121