Research Article

The Persian version of the word Auditory Recognition and Recall Measure: Validity and Reliability Assessment

Abstract

Background and aim: Speech perception in noise involves more than recognizing speech sounds. Given the importance of working memory in speech comprehension and the lack of a Persian working memory test with appropriate lexical load, this study aimed to develop and validate the Persian version of the Word Auditory Recognition and Recall Measure (WARRM) test in 18-25-year-old Persian speakers.
Method: The study involved two main stages: developing the Persian version of the test and evaluating its validity and reliability. Persian words were selected by help of a linguistics expert based on phonetic and semantic features. Face and content validity were confirmed by 10 specialists. Monolingual Persian-speaking students aged 18-25 at Tehran universities in 2023 participated. The WARRM test was administered along with the forward and backward digit span test. Half of the participants repeated the WARRM test after 2 weeks. Data were analyzed.
Result: The WARRM test showed good face and content validity. Overall reliability was 0.72, with subscale reliabilities of 0.49 (recognition), 0.73 (judgment), and 0.87 (recall). The ICC for test-retest was 0.88 (overall), 0.89 (recall subscale), and 0.48 (recognition subscale). Significant positive correlations were found between the WARRM score and forward digit span (r=0.65, p<0.001) and backward digit span (r=0.43, p<0.001).
Conclusion: The results indicate that the Persian version of the WARRM has good validity_ reliability, making it suitable for use in clinical and rehabilitation procedure.

1. Gussekloo J, de Bont LE, von Faber M, Eekhof JA, de Laat JA, Hulshof JH, et al. Auditory rehabilitation of older people from the general population--the Leiden 85-plus study. Br J Gen Pract. 2003;53(492):536-40.
2. Ziegler JC, Pech-Georgel C, George F, Alario FX, Lorenzi C. Deficits in speech perception predict language learning impairment. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005;102(39):14110-5. [DOI:10.1073/pnas.0504446102]
3. Lotfi Y, Kargar S, Javanbakht M, Biglarian A. Development, Validity and Reliability of the Persian Version of the Consonant-Vowel in White Noise Test. JRSR. 2016;3(2):29-34. [DOI:10.30476/jrsr.2016.41090]
4. Akeroyd MA. Are individual differences in speech reception related to individual differences in cognitive ability? A survey of twenty experimental studies with normal and hearing-impaired adults. Int J Audiol. 2008;47 Suppl 2:S53-71. [DOI:10.1080/14992020802301142]
5. Knudsen EI. Fundamental components of attention. Annu Rev Neurosci. 2007;30:57-78. [DOI:10.1146/annurev.neuro.30.051606.094256]
6. Banh J, Singh G, Pichora-Fuller MK. Age affects responses on the Speech, Spatial, and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ) by adults with minimal audiometric loss. J Am Acad Audiol. 2012;23(2):81-91; quiz 139-40. [DOI:10.3766/jaaa.23.2.2]
7. Shokuhifar G, Javanbakht M, Vahedi M, Mehrkian S, Aghadoost A. The relationship between speech in noise perception and auditory working memory capacity in monolingual and bilingual adults. Int J Audiol. 2024:1-8. [DOI:10.1080/14992027.2024.2328556]
8. Mehrkian S, Mozaffari Z, Bakhshi E. The relationship between working memory capacity and temporal and dichotic auditory processing in teachers. Aud Vestib Res. 2019;28(2):100-5. [DOI:10.18502/avr.v28i2.864]
9. Najjari R, Mohammadi M. The Development of Reading and Operation Span Tasks in Persian as Measures of Working Memory Capacity for Iranian EFL Learners. J Teach Lang Skills. 2017;36(2):129-62. [DOI:10.22099/JTLS.2017.24688.2215]
10. Nejati V, Alipour F. Persian version of digit span test, word span, non-word span, and evaluate the psychometric properties and comparable sensitivity in measuring working memory of children. J Appl Psychol. 2016;10(2):73-88.
11. Fostick L, Ben-Artzi E, Babkoff H. Aging and speech perception: beyond hearing threshold and cognitive ability. J Basic Clin Physiol Pharmacol. 2013;24(3):175-83. [DOI:10.1515/jbcpp-2013-0048]
12. Sheft S, Shafiro V, Wang E, Barnes LL, Shah RC. Relationship between Auditory and Cognitive Abilities in Older Adults. PLoS One. 2015;10(8):e0134330. [DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0134330]
13. Aghamollaei M, Tahaei SA, Jafari Z, Toufan R, Keyhani MR. [Development and evaluation of the Persian version of the dichotic auditory-verbal memory test in 18- to 25-year old normal individuals]. Audiol. 2011;20(2):86-94. Persian.
14. Smith SL, Pichora-Fuller MK, Alexander G. Development of the Word Auditory Recognition and Recall Measure: A Working Memory Test for Use in Rehabilitative Audiology. Ear Hear. 2016;37(6):e360-76. [DOI:10.1097/AUD.0000000000000329]
15. Smith SL, Ryan DB, Pichora-Fuller MK. Development of Abbreviated Versions of the Word Auditory Recognition and Recall Measure. Ear Hear. 2020;41(6):1483-91. [DOI:10.1097/AUD.0000000000000869]
16. Smith SL, Pichora-Fuller MK. Associations between speech understanding and auditory and visual tests of verbal working memory: effects of linguistic complexity, task, age, and hearing loss. Front Psychol. 2015;6:1394. [DOI:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01394]
17. Kowialiewski B, Lemaire B, Portrat S. How does semantic knowledge impact working memory maintenance? Computational and behavioral investigations. J Mem Lang. 2021;117:104208. [DOI:10.1016/j.jml.2020.104208]
18. 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]
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. Waltz CF, Bausell RB. Nursing research: Design, statistics, and computer analysis. Philadelphia: FA Davis company; 1981.
23. Baddeley A. Working memory. Science. 1992 Jan 31;255(5044):556-9. [DOI:10.1126/science.1736359]
Files
IssueArticles in Press QRcode
SectionResearch Article(s)
Keywords
Auditory working memory recognition recall 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.
Shahrokhi R, Ramezani M, Javanbakht M, Mahmoodi-Bakhtiari B, Bakhshi E. The Persian version of the word Auditory Recognition and Recall Measure: Validity and Reliability Assessment. Aud Vestib Res. 2024;.