Research Article

Test-retest reliability and list equivalency of Persian quick speech in noise test in Azari-Persian bilinguals

Abstract

Background and Aim: The quick speech in noise (Q-SIN) test results have been reported to be entirely different in monolinguals compared to bilinguals. We attempted to assess the reliability and equivalency of the Persian Q-SIN test in Azeri-Persian bilinguals.
Methods: The Q-SIN test was performed on 51 Persian monolinguals and 51 Azeri-Persian bilinguals by the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 5th lists binaurally under headphone. The signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) loss was determined for each group. The reliability was evaluated on 30 bilinguals.
Results: There was no gender effect on all results in both groups. The mean SNR losses of four lists were -1.19 and -0.8dB in monolinguals and bilinguals, respectively, also they were within normal limits in both groups. The mean SNR losses for all lists in monolinguals were better than those in bilinguals, but there was a significant difference between two groups for list 1 (p=0.03). No significant differences were observed between two runs for lists 1, 3, and 5 in bilinguals, and two runs for lists 1, 2, and 5 were significantly correlated. There were no significant differences between the scores of lists 2, 3, and 5 in bilinguals (p>0.000), and a moderate correlation existed between lists 2 and 3.
Conclusion: The scores of lists 2, 3, and 5 in bilinguals are similar to those in monolinguals. In bilinguals, lists 1 and 5 are reliable, and lists 2 and 3 are equivalent. The overall results indicate limitations in both reliability and equivalency of Persian Q-SIN lists in the bilinguals.

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. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2008.03.067.
2. Parbery-Clark A, Strait DL, Anderson S, Hittner E, Kraus N. Musical experience and the aging auditory system: implications for cognitive abilities and hearing speech in noise. PLoS One. 2011;6(5):e18082. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0018082.
3. Anderson S, Kraus N. Sensory-cognitive interaction in the neural encoding of speech in noise: a review. J Am Acad Audiol. 2010;21(9):575-85. doi: 10.3766/jaaa.21.9.3.
4. Anderson S, Skoe E, Chandrasekaran B, Zecker S, Kraus N. Brainstem correlates of speech-in-noise perception in children. Hear Res. 2010;270(1-2):151-7. doi: 10.1016/j.heares.2010.08.001.
5. Kormi-Nouri R, Shojaei RS, Moniri S, Gholami AR, Moradi AR, Akbari-Zardkhaneh S, et al. The effect of childhood bilingualism on episodic and semantic memory tasks. Scand J Psychol. 2008;49(2):93-109. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9450.2008.00633.x.
6. von Hapsburg D, Champlin CA, Shetty SR. Reception thresholds for sentences in bilingual (Spanish/English) and monolingual (English) listeners. J Am Acad Audiol. 2004;15(1):88-98. doi: 10.3766/jaaa.15.1.9.
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. doi: 10.1097/00025572-200003000-00006.
8. Wilson RH, McArdle RA, Smith SL. An evaluation of the BKB-SIN, HINT, Quick SIN, and WIN materials on listeners with normal hearing and listeners with hearing loss. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2007;50(4):844-56. doi: 10.1044/1092-4388(2007/059).
9. 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. doi: 10.3109/14992020903082088.
10. Khalili M, Fatahi J, Hajiabolhassan F, Tahaei AA, Jalaie S. [Test-retest reliability and list equivalency of the Persian quick speech in noise test]. Journal of Modern Rehabilitation. 2010;3(3-4):16-21. Persian.
11. Shayanmehr S, Tahaei 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.
12. Hanilou J, Fatahi J, Tahaei AA, Jalaie S. List equiva¬lency of the Persian quick speech in noise test on hearing impaired subjects. Aud Vest Res. 2016;25(1):7-13.
13. Gollan TH, Weissberger GH, Runnqvist E, Montoya RI, Cera CM. Self-ratings of spoken language dominance: a multi-lingual naming test (MINT) and preliminary norms for young and aging Spanish-English bilinguals. Biling (Camb Engl). 2012;15(3):594-615. doi: 10.1017/s1366728911000332.
14. 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. doi: 10.1121/1.1784440.
15. McArdle RA, Wilson RH. Homogeneity of the 18 QuickSIN™ lists. J Am Acad Audiol. 2006;17(3):157-67. doi: 10.3766/jaaa.17.3.2.
16. Lucks Mendel L, Widner H. Speech perception in noise for bilingual listeners with normal hearing. Int J Audiol. 2016;55(2):126-34. doi: 10.3109/14992027.2015.1061710.
17. Krizman J, Bradlow AR, Lam SS, Kraus N. How bilinguals listen in noise: linguistic and non-linguistic factors. Biling (Camb Engl). 2017;20(4):834-43. doi: 10.1017/s1366728916000444.
Files
IssueVol 26 No 3 (2017) QRcode
SectionResearch Article(s)
Keywords
Bilingual list equivalency monolingual quick speech in noise test 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.
Gheissi E, Fatahi J, Farahani S, Jalaie S, Tahaei AA. Test-retest reliability and list equivalency of Persian quick speech in noise test in Azari-Persian bilinguals. Aud Vestib Res. 2017;26(3):157-162.