Research Article

Development and Validation of Azeri Version of Speech Recognitifon Threshold Test in Adult Azeri Population and Compiling Psychometrically Equivalent Lists

Abstract

Background and Aim: One of the various measures used in speech audiometry is the speech recognition threshold. The aim of this study is to construct psychometrically equivalent lists containing Azeri two-syllable words to evaluate speech reception threshold in Azeri-speaking adults.
Methods: This study is a cross-sectional comparative study of test construction. Common two-syllable words were collected from Azeri books. Words with features of ease, familiarity, and relatedness as well as phonetic balance and phonetic dissimilarity were included in 5 lists of 10 words. The lists were evaluated for psychometric evaluations and validity and reliability on young Azeri population at 5 intensity levels from –5 to 15 dB HL. After two to four weeks, people were tested again under the same conditions.
Results: All 5 lists showed favorable face, content validity index and content validity ratio. The average speech thresholds obtained were 9.62, 9.77, 9.57, 9.67 and 9.57, respectively. Cronbach's alpha coefficient and halving were obtained above 0.8 in all 5 lists. Test-retest reliability was also significant (p<0.001).
Conclusion: The review and analysis performed on the data show that all 5 lists have psychometric homogeneity and alignment and show a high degree of validity and reliability; which makes them suitable for evaluating speech reception threshold in hearing centers of Azari regions.

1. Guidelines for determining threshold level for speech. ASHA. 1988;30(3):85-9.
2. 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]
3. Gelfand SA, Calandruccio L. Essentials of Audiology. 5th ed. New York: Thieme; 2022.
4. Hudgins CV, Hawkins JE, Kaklin JE, Stevens SS. et al. The development of recorded auditory tests for measuring hearing loss for speech. Laryngoscope. 1947;57(1):57-89. [DOI:10.1288/00005537-194701000-00005]
5. Ramkissoon I. Speech Recognition Thresholds for Multilingual Populations. Commun Disord Q. 2001;22(3):158-62. [DOI:10.1177/152574010102200305]
6. Nissen SL, Harris RW, Jennings LJ, Eggett DL, Buck H. Psychometrically equivalent trisyllabic words for speech reception threshold testing in Mandarin. Int J Audiol. 2005;44(7):391-9. [DOI:10.1080/14992020500147672]
7. 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]
8. 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]
9. Mahdavi ME, Rabiei A. Psychometric function characteristics of Persian consonantvowel-consonant words. Aud Vestib Res. 2021;30(1):50-5. [DOI:10.18502/avr.v30i1.5311]
10. Erfani P. Azeri Morphosyntax: The Influence of Persian on a Turkic Language. [Thesis]. Vancouver: Simon Fraser University; 2012.
11. Mohsen SM, Jabri F, Al Maidani S, Ammar A, Alkhatib R. Construction and Standardization of the Syrian Version of the Word Rec-ognition Test for Children with Hearing Impairment. Aud Vestib Res. 2022;31(4):264-74. [DOI:10.18502/avr.v31i4.10730]
12. Yusof MSB. ABC of Content Validation and Content Validity Index Calculation. Educ Med J. 2019;11(2):49-54. [DOI:10.21315/eimj2019.11.2.6]
13. Roup CM, Wiley TL, Safady SH, Stoppenbach DT. Tympanometric Screening Norms for Adults. Am J Audiol. 1998;7(2):55-60. [DOI:10.1044/1059-0889(1998/014)]
14. 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.
15. Wang S, Mannell R, Newall P, Zhang H, Han D. Development and evaluation of Mandarin disyllabic materials for speech audiometry in China. Int J Audiol. 2007;46(12):719-31. [DOI:10.1080/14992020701558511]
16. Beattie RC, Forrester PW, Ruby BK. Reliability of the Tillman-Olsen procedure for determination of spondee threshold using recorded and live voice presentations. J Am Audiol Soc. 1977;2(4):159-62.
17. Harris RW, Kim E, Eggett DL. Psychometrically equivalent Korean bisyllabic words spoken by male and female talker. Commun Sci Disord. 2003;8(1):244-70.
18. Harris RW, McPherson DL, Hanson CM, Eggett DL. Psychometrically equivalent bisyllabic words for speech recognition threshold testing in Vietnamese. Int J Audiol. 2017;56(8):525-37. [DOI:10.1080/14992027.2017.1303202]
19. 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
IssueArticles in Press QRcode
SectionResearch Article(s)
Keywords
Psychometric function speech reception threshold test Azeri language validity reliability
Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
1.
Hammami Dizaj A, Rahbar N, Mahmoudi Bakhtiari B, Sameni SJ, Mansoory N. Development and Validation of Azeri Version of Speech Recognitifon Threshold Test in Adult Azeri Population and Compiling Psychometrically Equivalent Lists. Aud Vestib Res. 2024;.