List equivalency of the Persian quick speech in noise test on hearing impaired subjects

  • Javad Hanilou Department of Audiology, School of Rehabilitation, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
  • Jamileh Fatahi Department of Audiology, School of Rehabilitation, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran AND Department of Audiology, School of Rehabilitation Sciences, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
  • Ali Akbar Tahaei Department of Audiology, School of Rehabilitation Sciences, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
  • Shohreh Jalaie Biostatistics, School of Rehabilitation, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
Keywords: Quick speech in noise test, reliability, list equivalency, Persian

Abstract

Background and Aim: The quick speech in noise (Q-SIN) test have been designed to evalu­ate individuals’ ability to recognize speech in noise. This study established to evaluate the test-retest reliability and equivalency of the five test lists of the Persian Q-SIN test in subjects with sensory hearing loss (SHL) and normal hearing individuals.Methods: This cross-sectional study was per­formed on equal number of subjects with normal hearing and SHL, 36 in each group. The participants aged from 18 to 55 years old. The Persian Q-SIN test materials which were reco­rded on a CD were presented binaurally via an audiometer using standard earphones. For eval­uating reliability retest was conducted on the same subjects after three weeks.Results: The mean signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) loss was 0.16 (SD=0.70 dB) in normal hearing subjects. There was a significant difference bet­ ween the mean results of lists 1, 2 and 4 and lists 2, 3 and 4 as well as lists 4 and 5. The mean SNR loss in subjects with SHL was 6.62 (SD=3.20 dB). There was a significant difference between the mean results of list 1 and that of lists 3, 4 and 5 (p<0.001). For reliability analysis of the two groups, there were no signi­ficant differences between test-retest results of the five test lists.Conclusion: Lists 3 and 5 as well as lists 2 and 5 are reliable and equivalent for determining SNR loss in individuals with normal hearing and SHL individuals.

References

1. Rajan R, Cainer KE. Ageing without hearing loss or cognitive impairment causes a decrease in speech intelligibility only in informational maskers. Neuroscience. 2008;154(2):784-95.
2. Parbery-Clark A, Skoe E, Lam C, Kraus N. Musician enhancement for speech-in-noise. Ear Hear. 2009;30(6):653-61.
3. Theunissen M, Swanepoel de W, Hanekom J. Sentence recognition in noise: Variables in compilation and interpretation of tests. Int J Audiol. 2009;48(11):743-57.
4. Taylor B. Speech‐in‐noise tests: How and why to include them in your basic test battery. Hear J. 2003;56(1):40,42-46.
5. Kochkin S. MarkeTrak V: "Why my hearing aids are in the drawer": the consumers' perspective. Hear J. 2000;53(2):34,36,39-41.
6. Killion MC. The SIN report: Circuits haven’t solved the hearing-in-noise problem. Hear J. 1997;50(10):28-30,32,34.
7. Killion MC, Niquette PA. What can the pure-tone audiogram tell us about a patient's SNR loss? Hear J. 2000;53(3):46-48,50,52-53.
8. Killion MC, Niquette PA, Gudmundsen GI, Revit LJ, Banerjee S. Development of a quick speech-in-noise test for measuring signal-to-noise ratio loss in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am. 2004;116(4 Pt 1):2395-405.
9. McArdle RA, Wilson RH. Homogeneity of the 18 Quick SIN™ Lists. J Am Acad Audiol. 2006;17(3):157-67.
10. Etymotic Research. Quick speech in noise test version 1.3. Elk Grove Village,IL: 2001.
11. Duncan KR, Aarts NL. A comparison of the HINT and Quick Sin Tests. Journal of Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology. 2006;30(2):86-94.
12. Shayanmehr S, Tahaie AA, Fatahi J, Jalaie S, Modarresi Y. Development, validity and reliability of Persian quick speech in noise test with steady noise. Aud Vest Res. 2015;24(4):234-44.
13. Snell KB, Mapes FM, Hickman ED, Frisina DR. Word recognition in competing babble and the effects of age, temporal processing, and absolute sensitivity. J Acoust Soc Am. 2002;112(2):720-7.
14. Piazza DM. The influence of sex and handedness in the hemispheric specialization of verbal and nonverbal tasks. Neuropsychologia. 1980;18(2):163-76.
15. Foroughan M, Jafari Z, Shirinbayan P, Ghaemmagham Farahani Z, Rahgozar M. Validation of mini-mental state examination (MMSE) in the elderly population of Tehran. Advances in Cognitive Sciences. 2008;10(2):27-39. Persian.
16. Shanks J, Shohet J. Tympanometry in clinical practice. In: Katz J, Medwetsky L, Burkard R, Hood L, editorS. Handbook of Clinical Audiology. 6th ed. Baltimore: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2009. p. 157-88.
17. Metz O. Threshold of reflex contractions of muscles of middle ear and recruitment of loudness. AMA Arch Otolaryngol. 1952;55(5):536-43.
Published
2016-04-20
How to Cite
1.
Hanilou J, Fatahi J, Tahaei AA, Jalaie S. List equivalency of the Persian quick speech in noise test on hearing impaired subjects. Aud Vestib Res. 25(1):7-13.
Section
Research Article(s)