Research Article

Psychometric function characteristics of Persian consonant-vowel-consonant words


Background and Aim: Evaluation of word recognition score requires multiple lists that must be similar in terms of difficulty level. There is currently no such word lists for the Persian language. The aim of this study was to construct several lists of Persian monosyllabic words with psychometric homogeneity.
Methods: The most common monosyllabic words were collected from a book of Persian word frequency. The selected monosyllabic Consonant-Vowel-Consonant (CVC) words were presented randomly to 30 normal hearing participants with the age range of 18 to 25 years. The presentation level was from 0 to 40 dB in 8 dB increments. The characteristics of psychometric function were determined for all words using the logistic regression.
Results: The Persian CVC monosyllabic words have different difficulty levels with threshold varying from 2.8 to 37.2 dB HL and the slope from 2.3 to 16.4 %/dB.
Conclusion: The final result of the present study is three full lists of monosyllabic words with CVC syllabic structure that have the same mean threshold and slope of psychometric function. The 25-word half-lists of each full list are similar in terms of psychometric characteristics.

1. Mosleh M. [Development and evaluation of a speech recognition test for Persian speaking adults]. Audiol. 2001;9(1-2):72-6. Persian.
2. Moin M. An intermediate Persian dictionary: Tehran: Amir Kabir Publishing Corporation; 1992.
3. Delphi M, Jarollahi F, Tahaie SA, Modarresi Y, Kamali M. [Evaluating Mosleh monosylabic word lists in adults with noise-induced hearing loss]. Audiol. 2013;22(3):14-22. Persian.
4. Wilson RH, Margolis RH. Measurements of auditory thresholds for speech stimuli. In: Konkle DF, Rintelmann WF, editors. Principles of speech audiometry. Baltimore: University Park Press; 1983. p. 79-126.
5. Tsai KS, Tseng LH, Wu CJ, Young ST. Development of a mandarin monosyllable recognition test. Ear Hear. 2009;30(1):90-9. doi: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e31818f28a6
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. MacPherson A, Akeroyd, MA. Variations in the slope of the psychometric functions for speech intelligibility: A systematic survey.Trends Hear. 2014;18(6): 1-26. doi: 10.1177/2331216514537722
9. Ebrahimi A, Mahdavi ME, Jalilvand H. Auditory recognition of Persian digits in presence of speech-spectrum noise and multi-talker babble: a validation study. Aud Vestib Res. 2020;29(1):39-47. doi: 10.18502/avr.v29i1.2368
10. Heidari M, Mahdavi ME, Heidari F, Akbarzadeh Baghban A. Auditory recognition of Persian digits in multi-talker babble noise: a preliminary study. Aud Vestib Res. 2015;24(3):25-31.
11. Miller C, Aghajanian-Stewart K. A Frequency Dictionary of Persian: Core vocabulary for learners. 1st ed.New York, NY: Routledge; 2018.
12. Beattie RC, Edgerton BJ, Svihovec DV. A comparison of the Auditec of St. Louis cassette recordings of NU-6 and CID W-22 on a normal-hearing population. J Speech Hear Disord. 1977;42(1):60-4. doi: 10.1044/jshd.4201.60
13. WilsonRH, Oyler AL. Psychometric functions for the CID W-22 and NU Auditory Test No. 6. Materials spoken by the same speaker. Ear Hear. 1997;18(5):430-3. doi: 10.1097/00003446-199710000-00008
14. 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.
15. 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
16. Harris RW, Kim E, Eggett DL. Psychometrically equivalent Korean monosyllabic speech discrimination materials spoken by male and female talkers. Korean Journal of Communication Disorders. 2003;8(1):217-43.
17. 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. doi: 10.3109/14992027.2010.542491
18. Wong LL, Soli SD. Development of the Cantonese hearing in noise test (CHINT). Ear Hear. 2005;26(3):276-89. doi: 10.1097/00003446-200506000-00004
19. 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.
20. Wilson RH, McArdle R. Speech signals used to evaluate functional status of the auditory system. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2005;42(4 Suppl 2):79-94. doi: 10.1682/jrrd.2005.06.0096
21. Durankaya SM, Şerbetçioğlu B, Dalkılıç G, Gürkan S, Kırkım G. Development of a Turkish monosyllabic wordrecognition test for adults. J Int Adv Otol. 2014;10(2):172-80. doi: 10.5152/iao.2014.118
IssueVol 30 No 1 (2021) QRcode
SectionResearch Article(s)
Psychometric function Persian monosyllabic words speech audiometry

Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
Mahdavi ME, Rabiei A. Psychometric function characteristics of Persian consonant-vowel-consonant words. Aud Vestib Res. 2021;30(1):50-55.