List equivalency of the Persian quick speech in noise test on hearing impaired subjects

  • Javad Hanilou Department of Audiology, School of Rehabilitation, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
  • Jamileh Fatahi Mail Department of Audiology, School of Rehabilitation, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran AND Department of Audiology, School of Rehabilitation Sciences, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
  • Ali Akbar Tahaei Department of Audiology, School of Rehabilitation Sciences, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
  • Shohreh Jalaie Biostatistics, School of Rehabilitation, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
Keywords:
Quick speech in noise test, reliability, list equivalency, Persian

Abstract

Background and Aim: The quick speech in noise (Q-SIN) test have been designed to evalu­ate individuals’ ability to recognize speech in noise. This study established to evaluate the test-retest reliability and equivalency of the five test lists of the Persian Q-SIN test in subjects with sensory hearing loss (SHL) and normal hearing individuals.
Methods: This cross-sectional study was per­formed on equal number of subjects with normal hearing and SHL, 36 in each group. The participants aged from 18 to 55 years old. The Persian Q-SIN test materials which were reco­rded on a CD were presented binaurally via an audiometer using standard earphones. For eval­uating reliability retest was conducted on the same subjects after three weeks.
Results: The mean signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) loss was 0.16 (SD=0.70 dB) in normal hearing subjects. There was a significant difference bet­ ween the mean results of lists 1, 2 and 4 and lists 2, 3 and 4 as well as lists 4 and 5. The mean SNR loss in subjects with SHL was 6.62 (SD=3.20 dB). There was a significant difference between the mean results of list 1 and that of lists 3, 4 and 5 (p<0.001). For reliability analysis of the two groups, there were no signi­ficant differences between test-retest results of the five test lists.
Conclusion: Lists 3 and 5 as well as lists 2 and 5 are reliable and equivalent for determining SNR loss in individuals with normal hearing and SHL individuals.

References

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.
2. Parbery-Clark A, Skoe E, Lam C, Kraus N. Musician enhancement for speech-in-noise. Ear Hear. 2009;30(6):653-61.
3. 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.
4. Taylor B. Speech‐in‐noise tests: How and why to include them in your basic test battery. Hear J. 2003;56(1):40,42-46.
5. Kochkin S. MarkeTrak V: "Why my hearing aids are in the drawer": the consumers' perspective. Hear J. 2000;53(2):34,36,39-41.
6. Killion MC. The SIN report: Circuits haven’t solved the hearing-in-noise problem. Hear J. 1997;50(10):28-30,32,34.
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.
8. 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.
9. McArdle RA, Wilson RH. Homogeneity of the 18 Quick SIN™ Lists. J Am Acad Audiol. 2006;17(3):157-67.
10. Etymotic Research. Quick speech in noise test version 1.3. Elk Grove Village,IL: 2001.
11. Duncan KR, Aarts NL. A comparison of the HINT and Quick Sin Tests. Journal of Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology. 2006;30(2):86-94.
12. Shayanmehr S, Tahaie 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.
13. Snell KB, Mapes FM, Hickman ED, Frisina DR. Word recognition in competing babble and the effects of age, temporal processing, and absolute sensitivity. J Acoust Soc Am. 2002;112(2):720-7.
14. Piazza DM. The influence of sex and handedness in the hemispheric specialization of verbal and nonverbal tasks. Neuropsychologia. 1980;18(2):163-76.
15. Foroughan M, Jafari Z, Shirinbayan P, Ghaemmagham Farahani Z, Rahgozar M. Validation of mini-mental state examination (MMSE) in the elderly population of Tehran. Advances in Cognitive Sciences. 2008;10(2):27-39. Persian.
16. Shanks J, Shohet J. Tympanometry in clinical practice. In: Katz J, Medwetsky L, Burkard R, Hood L, editorS. Handbook of Clinical Audiology. 6th ed. Baltimore: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2009. p. 157-88.
17. Metz O. Threshold of reflex contractions of muscles of middle ear and recruitment of loudness. AMA Arch Otolaryngol. 1952;55(5):536-43.
Published
2016-04-20
How to Cite
1.
Hanilou J, Fatahi J, Tahaei AA, Jalaie S. List equivalency of the Persian quick speech in noise test on hearing impaired subjects. Aud Vestib Res. 25(1):7-13.
Section
Research Article(s)