Research Article

Developing and Validating Monosyllabic Speech Materials with Psychometric Homogeneity for Young Adult Turkish-Azeri Speakers in Iran and Compiling the Equivalent Word Lists

Abstract

Background and Aim: For the Word Recognition Score (WRS) test, homogenous lists of words with similar difficulty levels are needed. This study aimed to develop and validate Turkish-Azeri monosyllabic words with phonetic balance and psychometric homogeneity for the WRS test in young adult Turkish-Azeri speakers in Iran and to compile four 25-item word lists.
Methods: In this cross-sectional/comparative study, four lists of 25 monosyllabic words with phonetic balance were created by extracting common words from Turkish-Azeri dialects and assessing them in terms of ease of use, familiarity, and relevance. Then, the lists were tested on 40 young adult Azari speakers aged 18–25 years to determine the validity and reliability.
Results: All four lists showed adequate face and content validity. Cronbach’s alpha and split-half values for all four lists were above 0.9, indicating acceptable internal consistency and reliability. Construct validity was confirmed the factor analysis with one-dimensional variance of 77.9%, 80.0%, 79.9%, and 88% for the word lists 1 to 4, respectively, and reported the single-factor solution of the index in all four lists. Also, test-retest reliability with a two-week interval with Pearson correlation coefficients of the lists were 0.94, 0.97, 0.97, and 0.96, respectively.
Conclusion: The four developed Turkish-Azeri word lists have phonetic balance and psychometric homogeneity with a high level of validity and reliability, which makes them suitable for evaluating the recognition of monosyllabic words by young adults in hearing centers of Azeri cities in Iran.

1. Tillman TW, Carhart R. An expanded test for speech discrimination utilizing CNC monosyllabic words. Northwestern University Auditory Test No. 6. SAM-TR-66-55. Tech Rep SAM-TR. 1966:1-12. [DOI:10.21236/ad0639638]
2. Jarolahi F, Delphi M, Tahaie SA, Modarresi Y, Kamali M, Jafari M. [Selection of preeminent list in word recognition score test for adult with normal hearing]. J Res Rehabil Sci. 2012;8(2):212-8. Persian. [DOI:10.22122/JRRS.V8I2.343]
3. Carhart R. Basic principles of speech audiometry. Acta Otolaryngol. 1951;40(1-2):62-71. [DOI:10.3109/00016485109138908]
4. Egan JP. Articulation testing methods. Laryngoscope. 1948;58(9):955-91. [DOI:10.1288/00005537-194809000-00002]
5. Han D, Wang S, Zhang H, Chen J, Jiang W, Mannell R, et al. Development of Mandarin monosyllabic speech test materials in China. Int J Audiol. 2009;48(5):300-11. [DOI:10.1080/14992020802607456]
6. Dillon H. The effect of test difficulty on the sensitivity of speech discrimination tests. J Acoust Soc Am. 1983;73(1):336-44. [DOI:10.1121/1.388815]
7. Young LL Jr, Dudley B, Gunter MB. Thresholds and psychometric functions of the individual spondaic words. J Speech Hear Res. 1982;25(4):586-93. [DOI:10.1044/jshr.2504.586]
8. Mahdavi ME, Rabiei A. Psychometric function characteristics of Persian consonant-vowel-consonant words. Aud Vestib Res. 2021;30(1):50-5. [DOI:10.18502/avr.v30i1.5311]
9. Rezaei S, Latifi A, Nematzadeh A. Attitude towards Azeri language in Iran: a large-scale survey research. J Multiling Multicult Dev. 2017;38(10):931-41. [DOI:10.1080/01434632.2017.1342652]
10. Ghaffarvand Mokari P, Werner S. Azerbaijani. J Int Phon Assoc. 2017;47(2):207-12. [DOI:10.1017/S0025100317000184]
11. Guidelines for screening for hearing impairment and middle-ear disorders. Working Group on Acoustic Immittance Measurements and the Committee on Audiologic Evaluation. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. ASHA Suppl. 1990;(2):17-24.
12. Wilson RH, Strouse A. Psychometrically equivalent spondaic words spoken by a female speaker. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 1999;42(6):1336-46. [DOI:10.1044/jslhr.4206.1336]
13. MacPherson A, Akeroyd MA. Variations in the slope of the psychometric functions for speech intelligibility: a systematic survey. Trends Hear. 2014;18:2331216514537722. [DOI:10.1177/2331216514537722]
14. Mohsen SM, Jabri F, Al Maidani S, Ammar A, Alkhatib R. Construction and Standardization of the Syrian Version of the Word Recognition Test for Children with Hearing Impairment. Aud Vestib Res. 2022;31(4):264-74. [DOI:10.18502/avr.v31i4.10730]
15. Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika. 1951;16(3):297-334. [DOI:10.1007/BF02310555]
16. Green SB, Yang Y, Alt M, Brinkley S, Gray S, Hogan T, et al. Use of internal consistency coefficients for estimating reliability of experimental task scores. Psychon Bull Rev. 2016;23(3):750-63. [DOI:10.3758/s13423-015-0968-3]
17. Crocker LM, Algina J. Introduction to classical and modern test theory. 1st ed. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston; 1986.
18. Lawshe CH. A quantitative approach to content validity. Pers Psychol. 1975;28(4):563-75. [DOI:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1975.tb01393.x]
19. Egan JJ. Basic aspects of speech audiometry. Ear Nose Throat J. 1979;58(5):190-3.
20. Martin FN, Champlin CA, Perez DD. The question of phonetic balance in word recognition testing. J Am Acad Audiol. 2000;11(9):489-93; quiz 522. [DOI:10.1055/s-0042-1748141]
21. Harris RW, Nissen SL, Pola MG, McPherson DL, Tavartkiladze GA, Eggett DL. Psychometrically equivalent Russian speech audiometry materials by male and female talkers. Int J Audiol. 2007;46(1):47-66. [DOI:10.1080/14992020601058117]
22. Durankaya SM, Şerbetçioğlu B, Dalkılıç G, Gürkan S, Kırkım G. Development of a Turkish Monosyllabic Word Recognition Test for Adults. Int Adv Otol. 2014;10(2):172-80. [DOI:10.5152/iao.2014.118]
23. Garadat SN, Alkharabsheh A, Almasri NA, Hagr A. Pediatric Arabic Closed-Set Word-Recognition Test: Development and Evaluation of Psychometric Characteristics. J Am Acad Audiol. 2021;32(8):547-54. [DOI:10.1055/s-0041-1732440]
24. Tsai KS, Tseng LH, Wu CJ, Young ST. Development of a mandarin monosyllable recognition test. Ear Hear. 2009;30(1):90-9. [DOI:10.1097/AUD.0b013e31818f28a6]
25. Beattie RC, Edgerton BJ, Svihovec DV. A comparison of the Auditec of St. Louis cassette recordings of NU-6 and CID W-22 on a normal-hearing population. J Speech Hear Disord. 1977;42(1):60-4. [DOI:10.1044/jshd.4201.60]
26. Wilson RH, Oyler AL. Psychometric functions for the CID W-22 and NU Auditory Test No. 6. Materials spoken by the same speaker. Ear Hear. 1997;18(5):430-3. [DOI:10.1097/00003446-199710000-00008]
27. Heckendorf AL, Wiley TL, Wilson RH. Performance norms for the VA compact disc versions of CID W-22 (Hirsh) and PB-50 (Rush Hughes) word lists. J Am Acad Audiol. 1997;8(3):163-72.
28. Harris RW, Kim E, Eggett DL. Psychometrically Equivalent Korean Monosyllabic Speech Discrimination Materials Spoken by Male and Female Talkers. Commun Sci Disord. 2003;8(1):217-43.
29. Wilson RH, Carter AS. Relation between slopes of word recognition psychometric functions and homogeneity of the stimulus materials. J Am Acad Audiol. 2001;12(1):7-14. [DOI:10.1055/s-0041-1741115]
Files
IssueVol 33 No 4 (2024) QRcode
SectionResearch Article(s)
DOI https://doi.org/10.18502/avr.v33i4.16653
Keywords
Speech audiometry speech discrimination test Azeri monosyllabic validity and reliability psychometric function
Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
1.
Karami A, Rahbar N, Mahmoodi-Bakhtiari B, Sameni SJ, Mansouri N. Developing and Validating Monosyllabic Speech Materials with Psychometric Homogeneity for Young Adult Turkish-Azeri Speakers in Iran and Compiling the Equivalent Word Lists. Aud Vestib Res. 2024;33(4):349-360.