Evaluating Mosleh monosylabic word lists in adults with noiseinduced hearing loss
,
Abstract
Background and Aim: As word recognition score test is one of the most important tests in audiologic test battery and there is no study on reliability and validity of existing monosyllabic word lists, we decided to investigate this in people with noise induced hearing loss.
Methods: In this non-randomized descriptive-analytic study, 30 adults with noise induced high frequency hearing loss with the age of 18 to 46 years were evaluated. Construct validity was evaluated by comparing Mosleh lists with list NU-6 and reliability was achieved by test-retest (-two-week interval).
Results: The mean (SD) score of word recognition was 94.01 (3.95) percent for list 2, 90.40 (4.90) percent for list 4, 89.08 (4.43) percent for list 5, and 94.10 (4.11) percent for list 9. A reliability of 94% was achieved in all four lists. Regression analysis revealed that word recognition score (WRS) had decreased in proportion to pure tone average.
Conclusion: Four lists have good construct validity. All word lists are phonetically reliable too.
2. Mosleh M. Development and evaluation of a speech recognition test for Persian speaking adults. Audiol. 2001;9(1-2):72-6.
3. Wilson RH, McArdle R, Roberts H. A comparison of recognition performances in speech-spectrum noise by listeners with normal hearing on PB-50, CID W-22, NU-6, W-1 spondaic words, and monosyllabic digits spoken by the same speaker. J Am Acad Audiol. 2008;19(6):496-506.
4. Hirsh IJ. Clinical audiometery and the perception of speech and language. Rev Laryngol otol Rhinol (Bord). 1964;85:453-64.
5. Dubno JR, Lee FS, Klein AJ, Matthews LJ, Lam CF. Confidence limits for maximum word-recognition scores. J Speech Hear Res. 1995;38(2):490-502.
6. Thibodeau LM. Speech audiometry. In: Rosser RJ, Valente M, Dun H, editors. Audiology diagnosis. 2nd ed. New York: Stuttgart; 2007. p. 288-313.
7. Stoppenbach DT, Craig JM, Wiley TL, Wilson RH. Word recognition performance for Northwestern University Auditory Test No. 6 word lists in quiet and in competing message. J Am Acad Audiol. 1999;10(8):429-35.
8. Kim Y, Park J, Lee H, Bang H, Park HJ. Content validity of acupuncture sensation questionnaire. J Altern Complement Med. 2008;14(8):957-63.
9. Wilson RH. Clinical experience with the words-in-noise test on 3430 veterans: comparisons with pure-tone thresholds and word recognition in quiet. J Am Acad Audiol. 2011;22(7):405-23.
10. Nissen SL, Harris RW, Channell RW, Conklin B, Kim M, Wong L. The development of psychometrically equivalent Cantonese speech audiometry materials. Int J Audiol. 2011;50(3):191-201.
11. 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.
12. Causey GD, Hood LJ, Hermanson CL, Bowling LS. The Maryland CNC Test: normative studies. Audiology. 1984;23(6):552-68.
| Issue | Vol 22 No 3 (2013) | |
| Section | Research Article(s) | |
| Keywords | ||
| Mosleh monosyllabic word lists word recognition score (WRS) validity reliability noise induced hearing loss | ||
| Rights and permissions | |
|
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
