Development and psychometric evaluation of Persian version of fused dichotic rhymed word test for 6-11 year-old Persian speaking normal children
Background and Aim: Dichotic listening tests have been used to study right ear advantage (REA). Fused dichotic rhymed word test (FDRWT), using rhymed words, is advantageous because of reducing the effect of attention on the test results. Development of Persian version of the FDRWT, and evaluation of its psychometric properties in normal children were the aims of the present study.
Methods: This study was conducted in two parts: selecting Persian monosyllabic word pairs according to the intended criteria and assessing content validity through Lawshe method. The test was set in a dichotic condition using four lists. Each list contains 30 pairs of words which were administered on 204 normal right-handed children from six different age groups (6-11 years old) of both genders. In order to evaluate the reliability of the test, retest was carried out within one to three weeks after the initial test.
Results: Content validity index (CVI) of FDRWT was 0.89. The results indicated greater right ear average scores for all the age groups (p<0.001). The average ear advantage for the age groups ≤ 10 years old was significantly higher than that of 11 year-old age group. The test has excellent internal consistency and high reliability (p<0.001).
Conclusion: The findings showed desirable validity and reliability of Persian version of the FDRWT so it can be used in evaluation of hemispheric language specialization in Persian-speaking children. More studies are needed to examine the test results in children suspected of having central auditory processing deficits.
2. Persson P, Harder H, Arlinger S, Magnuson B. Speech recognition in background noise: monaural versus bina¬ural listening conditions in normal-hearing patients. Otol Neurotol. 2001;22(5):625-30.
3. Slattery WH 3rd, Middlebrooks JC. Monaural sound localization: acute versus chronic unilateral impairment. Hear Res. 1994;75(1-2):38-46.
4. Moore DR. Anatomy and physiology of binaural hearing. Audiology. 1991;30(3):125-34.
5. Hugdahl K. What can be learned about brain function from dichotic listening? Rev Esp Neuropsicol. 2000;2(3):62-84.
6. Kimura D. Speech lateralization in young children as determined by an auditory test. J Comp Physiol Psychol. 1963;56:899-902.
7. Westerhausen R, Hugdahl K. The corpus callosum in dichotic listening studies of hemispheric asymmetry: a review of clinical and experimental evidence. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2008;32(5):1044-54.
8. Musiek FE, Weihing J. Perspectives on dichotic listening and the corpus callosum. Brain Cogn. 2011;76(2):225-32.
9. Mukari SZ, Keith RW, Tharpe AM, Johnson CD. Development and standardization of single and double dichotic digit tests in the Malay language. Int J Audiol. 2006;45(6):344-52.
10. Bamiou DE, Musiek FE, Luxon LM. Aetiology and clinical presentations of auditory processing disorders--a review. Arch Dis Child. 2001;85(5):361-5.
11. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. 2005. (central) auditory processing disorders [Technical Report]. Available from www.asha.org/policy.
12. Findlen UM, Roup CM. Dichotic speech recognition using CVC word and nonsense CVC syllable stimuli. J Am Acad Audiol. 2011;22(1):13-22.
13. Roup CM, Wiley TL, Wilson RH. Dichotic word reco¬gnition in young and older adults. J Am Acad Audiol. 2006;17(4):230-40; quiz 297-8.
14. Moncrieff DW, Musiek FE. Interaural asymmetries revealed by dichotic listening tests in normal and dyslexic children. J Am Acad Audiol. 2002;13(8):428-37.
15. Wexler BE, Halwes T. Increasing the power of dichotic methods: the fused rhymed words test. Neuro¬psychologia. 1983;21(1):59-66.
16. Zatorre RJ. Perceptual asymmetry on the dichotic fused words test and cerebral speech lateralization determined by the carotid sodium amytal test. Neuropsychologia. 1989;27(10):1207-19.
17. Fernandes MA, Smith ML. Comparing the fused dichotic words test and the intracarotid amobarbital procedure in children with epilepsy. Neuropsychologia. 2000;38(9):1216-28.
18. Fernandes MA, Smith ML, Logan W, Crawley A, McAndrews MP. Comparing language lateralization determined by dichotic listening and fMRI activation in frontal and temporal lobes in children with epilepsy. Brain Lang. 2006;96(1):106-14.
19. Musiek FE, Kurdziel-Schwan S, Kibbe KS, Gollegly KM, Baran JA, Rintelmann WF. The dichotic rhyme task: results in split-brain patients. Ear Hear. 1989;10(1):33-9.
20. Shinn JB, Baran JA, Moncrieff DW, Musiek FE. Differential attention effects on dichotic listening. J Am Acad Audiol. 2005;16(4):205-18.
21. Asbjørnsen AE, Hugdahl K. Attentional effects in dichotic listening. Brain Lang. 1995;49(3):189-201.
22. Mahdavi M, Peyvandi AA. Persian competing word test: Development and preliminary results in normal children. Audiol. 2007;16(2):1-7.
23. Rajabpur E, Hajiablohasan F, Tahai A, Jalaie S. ssDevelopment of the Persian single dichotic digit test and its reliability in 7-9 year old male students. Audiol. 2014, 23(5): 68-77. Persian.
24. Shahmir B, Hajiabolhassan F, Mohammadkhani G, Tahaei A, Jalaie S. Development and evaluation of
the reliability of Persian version of double dichotic digit test in girls aged 7 to 11 years. Aud Vest Res. 2015;24(3):164-70. Persian.
25. Moein M. Moein Persian Dictionary. Tehran: Amir Kabir publication; 1999.
26. Rimol LM, Eichele T, Hugdahl K. The effect of voice-onset-time on dichotic listening with consonant-vowel syllables. Neuropsychologia. 2006;44(2):191-6.
27. Bedoin N, Ferragne E, Marsico E. Hemispheric asy¬mmetries depend on the phonetic feature: a dichotic study of place of articulation and voicing in French stops. Brain Lang. 2010;115(2):133-40.
28. Salehi S, Jahan A, Salehi N, Moghaddam Salimi M, Ghaedlou L, Safari K. Voice onset time in Persian stop consonants. Journal of Research in Rehabilitation Sciences. 2012;8(5):827-33. Persian.
29. Dastjerdi Kazemi M. Vocabulary test and its application in the "Persian core vocabulary" project. Journal of Curriculum Studies. 2013;7(27):5-32. Persian.
30. Lawshe CH. A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel psychology. 1975;28(4):563-75.
31. Alipour A, Agah Haris M. Reliability and validity of Edinburg handedness inventory in Iran. Journal of Psychological Sciences. 2007;22:117-33.
32. Mohammadbeigi A, Mohammadsalehi N, Aligol M. Validity and reliability of the instruments and types of measurements in health applied researches. J Rafsanjan Univ Med Sci. 2015;13(12):1153-70. Persian.
33. Moncrieff DW. Dichotic listening in children: age-related changes in direction and magnitude of ear advantage. Brain Cogn. 2011;76(2):316-22.
Copyright (c) 2016 Auditory and Vestibular Research
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.