Factors Affecting Speech Discrimination Test Difficulty

1969 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 281-287 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. James Kreul ◽  
Donald W. Bell ◽  
James C. Nixon
Keyword(s):  
Test Development ◽  
Test Material ◽  
Speech Discrimination ◽  
Discrimination Test ◽  
Factors Affecting ◽  
Speech Discrimination Test ◽  
Word Lists

Changes in item and overall test difficulty of speech discrimination and intelligibility tests were examined as a function of: carrier phrase, talker, reutterances by a talker, and level of accompanying noise. The results indicate that all of these variables must be considered in test development. Only the actual recordings of the spoken lists of words can be considered to be the test material; the word lists, in and of themselves, should not be thought of as test material.

Discrimination Test Word Difficulty

1965 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 13-22 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard A. Campbell
Keyword(s):  
Test Word ◽  
General Purpose ◽  
Clinical Population ◽  
Average Level ◽  
Speech Discrimination ◽  
Discrimination Test ◽  
Speech Discrimination Test ◽  
Word Lists ◽  
Level Of Difficulty ◽  
Word Difficulty

Criteria for the construction and evaluation of clinical speech discrimination test word lists are reviewed. Particular emphasis is placed on the need for such lists to be appropriate and homogeneous in both range and average level of word difficulty. Individual word difficulty data obtained from a clinical population with discrimination losses are presented for the recorded CID W-22 Auditory Test Series. These data permitted the rearrangement of the 200 W-22 words into eight 25-word lists which promise to be more homogeneous in average level of difficulty. However, the range of word difficulty, of both the original or reconstructed tests, falls short of the optimal distribution for a general-purpose speech discrimination test.

scholarly journals Performance of Severely Hearing-Impaired Children on a Closed-Response, Auditory Speech Discrimination Test

1974 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 531-540 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenneth O. Jones ◽  
Gerald A. Studebaker
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Impaired ◽  
Speech Discrimination ◽  
Discrimination Test ◽  
Auditory Speech ◽  
Speech Discrimination Test ◽  
Hearing Function ◽  
Response Set ◽  
Comparison Of The Results ◽  
Impaired Children ◽  
Hearing Impaired Children

The performance of 23 hearing-impaired children on a closed-response, auditory speech discrimination test and on an open-response, auditory speech discrimination test was compared to their performance on auditory tests of sensitivity, teacher-evaluated categories, and other related subject data. A comparison of the results of closed-response, auditory speech discrimination test and the open-response, auditory speech discrimination test indicates that the closed-response set test paradigm appears more productive for use with severely hearing-impaired subjects whose level of performance is low (but not 0%) on the open-response, auditory speech discrimination test. The closed-response test scores for this group are highly positively correlated to data dependent upon hearing function, whereas the open-response scores are not. Analyses of the closed-response set test results indicate that a closed-response set test paradigm can successfully demonstrate auditory speech discrimination error patterns on a subject group basis.

scholarly journals Use of the CID W22 as a South African English speech discrimination test

2000 ◽  
Vol 47 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Wayne J. Wilson ◽  
Selvarani Moodley
Keyword(s):  
South Africa ◽  
South African ◽  
Normative Data ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
First Language ◽  
Reliability And Validity ◽  
Speech Discrimination ◽  
Discrimination Test ◽  
Viable Option ◽  
Speech Discrimination Test

South Africa currently lacks a pre-recorded South African English (SAE) specific speech discrimination test. In the absence of such a test, the SAE speaker recording (Tygerberg recording) of the American (USA) English (AE) CID W22 wordlists - in combination with the original American CID W22 normative data - is the most widely used alternative. The reliability and validity of this method, however, has never been formally assessed. This study assessed the performance of 15 normal hearing, female, first language SAE speakers on the first two full-lists of Tygerberg CID W22 recording at 20, 30, 40, 50, 60 and 70 dBSPL, and compared their scores to the American CID W22 wordlist normative data. Overall, the South African subjects performed worse than the original American normative data at the lower presentation intensities( 40 dBSPL), however, was considered a viable option. These results reiterate the need for large scale, South African specific normative studies for the CID W22 wordlists if they are to continue their role as the dominant speech discrimination wordlists in South Africa.

Comparison of Sentence Identification and Conventional Speech Discrimination Scores

1970 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 755-767 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles Speaks ◽  
James Jerger ◽  
Jane Trammell
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Impaired ◽  
Test Material ◽  
Speech Discrimination ◽  
Direct Relation ◽  
Word Lists ◽  
Test Materials

Performance scores for PB word lists and for synthetic sentences were compared on sixty hearing-impaired patients. Scores on the two types of test materials showed a direct relation to audiometric contour. Patients with relatively flat losses performed similarly with words and with sentences. As the slope of the audiometric pattern increased, however, the discrepancy between the scores for words and sentences also increased. Results were consistent with previous findings on the frequency regions important for understanding the two types of test material.

scholarly journals Use of the NAL-AB Wordlists as a South African English Speech Discrimination Test

1998 ◽  
Vol 45 (1) ◽  
pp. 77-86 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wayne J. Wilson ◽  
Beverley Jones ◽  
Peter Fridjhon
Keyword(s):  
South African ◽  
Normative Data ◽  
English Speakers ◽  
Speech Discrimination ◽  
Discrimination Test ◽  
The South ◽  
Threshold Levels ◽  
Speech Discrimination Test ◽  
Australian English ◽  
Intensity Functions

South Africa still lacks a South African English specific speech discrimination test. As an alternative, this study investigated the use of the Australian English, National Acoustic Laboratories Arthur Boothroyd (N AL-AB) wordlists to assess the speech discrimination of South African English speakers. Thirty South African English speakers were tested at 0, 5, 10, 20 and 25 dBHL  (audiometer dial reading) and their performance-intensity functions were compared qualitatively to the NAL-AB wordlist normative data. Results showed three general patterns; similar performance for both groups; poorer performance by the South African English speakers at the low to mid presentation intensities only; and poorer performance by the South African English speakers across most presentation intensities. Use of the NAL-AB wordlists at threshold levels or for site of lesion assessment was therefore concluded to be unwise. Use of these wordlists at supra-threshold levels, however, would provide a valid and reliable option for the speech discrimination assessment of South African English speakers.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document