Impact of Classroom Determinants on Psychosocial Aspects of Voice Among School Teachers of Indore, India: A Preliminary Survey


Teaching voice is the professional voice; often different in quality from our day-to-day speaking voice, and is supposed to be subjected to vocal abuse, misuse and overuse. This paper aims towards highlighting  the various classroom determinants that may impact teacher’s voice and how these impacts can affect the daily activities in terms of functional emotional and psychosocial aspects. To understand the same, a cross sectional prospective study was conducted across eight English medium institutions of Indore (a city in central India) region. The study was carried out in three phases: formulation of a questionnaire, data collection (through administration of the questionnaire and VHI among sixty school teachers) followed by data analysis, to determine whether any association exists between the various classroom determinants and voice impairment. Significant association was found between determinants like teaching experience; number of classes, duration of breaks, use of any alternate method of teaching and alternate use of any amplification device with physical, emotional and functional aspects of life. The findings holistically indicate that various factors within the classroom environment only has a significant bearing on the voice disturbances of a school teacher’s life thus deteriorating their quality of life. Thus it is substantial to begin a training programme by speech language pathologists in order to heighten awareness among teachers. After all voice disturbances are a real and treatable condition and with the right amount of training can be avoided.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1


  1. 1.

    Boominathan P, Chandrasekhar D, Nagarajan R, Madraswala NZ, Rajan A (2008) Vocal hygiene awareness program for professional voice users (Teachers). Asia Pac J Speech Lang Hear 11(1):39–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Pekkarinen E, Viljanen V (1991) Acoustic conditions for speech communication in classrooms. Scand Audiol 20:257–263

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Rantala L, Paavola L, Korkko P, Vilkman E (1998) Working-day effects on the spectral characteristics of teaching voice. Folia Phoniatr Logop 50:205–211

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Sapienza CM, Crandell CC, Curtis B (1999) Effects of sound-field frequency modulation amplification reducing teachers’ sound pressure level in the classroom. J Voice 13:375–381

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Roy N, Merril RM, Thibeault S et al (2004) Prevalence of voice disorders in teachers and the general population. J Speech Lang Hear Res 47(2):281–293

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Russell A, Oates J, Greenwood KM (2000) Prevalence of voice disorders among future teachers. J Voice 14(2):231–235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Sapir S, Keidar A, Mathers-Schmidt B (1993) Vocal attrition in teachers: survey findings. Eur J Disord Commun 28:177–185

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Smith E, Lemke J, Taylor M, Kirchner HL, Hoffman H (1998) Frequency of voice problems among teachers and other occupations. J Voice 12:480–488

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Miller M, Verdolini K (1995) Frequency of voice problems reported by teachers of singing and control subjects and risk factors. J Voice 8:348–362

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Morton V, Watson D (1998) The teaching voice: problems and perceptions. Logop Phoniatr Vocol 23:133–139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Sonninen A (1970) Phoniatric viewpoints on hoarseness. Acta Otolaryngol 263:68–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Hertegård S (1988) Voice problems in a small Swedish town: a retrospective study of the prevalence and a follow up. J Voice 1:336–340

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Jacobson BH, Johnson A, Grywalski C et al (1997) The Voice Handicap Index (VHI): development and validation. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 6:66–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Thibeault SL, Merrill RM, Roy N, Gray SD, Smith EM (2004) Occupational risk factors associated with voice disorders among teachers. Ann Epidemiol 14(10):786–792

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Guthrie JW (1997) School finance: fifty years of expansion. Future Child 7(3):24–38

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Alva A, Machado M, Bhojwani K, Sreedharan S (2017) Study of risk factors for development of voice disorders and its impact on the quality of life of school teachers of Mangalore, India. J Clin Diagn Res 11(1):1–5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Woods M, Allen P (1997) Characteristics of physical education teachers. Phys Educ 54:150–160

    Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Simberg S, Laine A, Sala E, Ronnemma A (2000) Prevalence of voice disorders among future teachers. J Voice 14(2):231–235

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Urrutikoetxea A, Ixpizua A, Matellanes F (1995) Prevalence of vocal nodules in female teachers. In: 1st world voice congress, Oporto, Portugal

  20. 20.

    Safarti J (1989) Vocal re-training of teachers. Rev Laryngol Otol Rhinol (Bordeaux) 110:393–395

    Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Preciado JA, Garcia-Tapia R, Infante JC (1998) Estudio de la prevalencia de los trastornos de la voz en los profesionales de la enseñanza. Factores que intervienen en su aparición o en su mantenimiento. Acta Otorrinol Esp 49:137–142

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Unger E, Bastian J (1981) Professional dysphonias. Deutsche Gesundh 36:1461–1464

    Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Masuda T, Ikeda Y, Manako H, Komiyama S (1993) Analysis of vocal abuse: fluctuations in phonation time and intensity in 4 groups of speakers. Acta Otolaryngol 113:547–552

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Sala E, Laine A, Simberg S, Pentti J, Suonpaa J (2001) The prevalence of voice disorders among day care centre teachers compared with nurses: a questionnaire and clinical study. J Voice 15:413–423

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Buekers R, Bierens E, Kingma H, Marres EHMA (1995) Voice load as measured by the voice accumulator. Folia Phoniatr Logop 47:252–261

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Martins RH, Pereira ER, Hidalgo CB, Tavares EL (2014) Voice disorders in teachers: a review. J Voice 28(6):716–724

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Jonsdottir V, Rantala L, Laukkanen AM, Vilkman E (2001) Effects of sound amplification on teachers’ speech while teaching. Logop Phoniatr Vocol 26:118–123

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Titze IR, Hunter JE, Svec JG (2007) Voicing and silence periods in daily and weekly vocalizations of teachers. J Acoust Soc Am 121:469–478

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Titze IR, Svec JG, Popolo PS (2003) Vocal dose measures: Quantifying accumulated vibration exposure in vocal fold tissues. J Speech Lang Hear Res 46:919–932

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Lindström F, Ohlsson AC, Sjöholm J, Persson WK (2010) Mean F0 values obtained through standard phrase pronunciation compared with values obtained from the normal work environment: a study on teacher and child voices performed in a preschool environment. J Voice 24:319–323

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Vintturi J, Alku P, Lauri ER et al (2001) The effects of post-loading rest on acoustic parameters with special reference to gender and ergonomic factors. Folia Phoniatr Logop 53:338–350

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Kooijman PGC, de Jong FICRS, Thomas G, Huinck W, Donders R, Graamans K et al (2006) Risk factors for voice problems in teachers. Folia Phoniatr Logop 58:159–174

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Chen SH, Chiang SC, Chung YM, Hsiao LC, Hsiao TY (2010) Risk factors and effects of voice problems for teachers. J Voice 24:183–190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Roy N, Weinrich B, Gray SD, Tanner K, Stemple JC et al (2003) Three treatments for teachers with voice disorders: a randomized clinical trial. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 46:670–688

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Larsen JB, Blair JC (2008) The effect of classroom amplification on the signal-to-noise ratio in classrooms while class is in session. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch. 39:451–460

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Roy N, Weinrich B, Gray SD, Tanner K, Toledo SW et al (2002) Voice amplification versus vocal hygiene instruction for teachers with voice disorders: a treatment outcomes study. J Speech Lang Hear Res 45:625–638

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


We sincerely extend our thanks to Dr. B.K Sharma, Associate Professor (Statistics), Sri Aurobindo Medical College and PGI Indore, whose statistical expertise was invaluable during the analysis and interpretation of the data that has been collected. Also thanks to the Principals and teachers of all the participating schools for allowing us to collect data during their busy school hours.

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kamalika Chowdhury.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The author declares that they no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Appendix: Awareness Questionnaire on Classroom Determinants

Appendix: Awareness Questionnaire on Classroom Determinants

Demographic Data

  1. (1)


  2. (2)


  3. (3)


  4. (4)

    Name of the school/college

  5. (5)


  6. (6)

    Language spoken (Mention all the languages):

  7. (7)

    Number of years of teaching:

  8. (8)

    Grades being teaching:

  9. (9)

    No. of working days (per week)

  10. (10)

    Any history/treatment of voice problem (If yes, provide details)

  11. (11)

    Presence/history of any hearing loss/neurological disorder (If yes, provide details):

Classroom Determinants

  1. Q1

    What is the total duration of school (per day)?

  2. Q2

    How many classes do you take in a day?

  3. Q3

    What is the duration of each class?

  4. Q4

    How many students do you teach in a class?

  5. Q5

    How many breaks do you have in a day?

  6. Q6

    What is the duration of each break?

  7. Q7

    Do you use chalk/black board frequently during teaching? (a) Yes (b) No

  8. Q8

    If yes, does the use of chalk/black board frequently during teaching helps in (a) reducing vocal stress (b) does not reduce vocal stress?

  9. Q9

    Do you use any alternate methods of teaching (like, LCD, projectors etc.) frequently? (a) Yes (b) No

  10. Q10

    If yes, does the use of alternate methods of teaching (like, LCD, projectors etc.) (a) reducing vocal stress (b) does not reduce vocal stress?

  11. Q11

    Do you use amplification system (mic and speaker) to be heard loud while teaching? (a) Yes (b) No

  12. Q12

    If yes, does the use of amplification system (mic and speaker) helps in (a) reducing vocal stress (b) does not reduce vocal stress?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chowdhury, K., Dawar, H. Impact of Classroom Determinants on Psychosocial Aspects of Voice Among School Teachers of Indore, India: A Preliminary Survey. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 71, 776–783 (2019).

Download citation


  • Teachers
  • Professional voice users
  • Classroom determinants
  • Questionnaire
  • Voice Handicap Index