Development and Psychometric Evaluation of Persian Dynamic Spatial Quick Speech-in-Noise Test in Adults with Normal Hearing
Background and Aim: Spatial hearing is a prerequisite for the proper function of the listener in complex auditory environments. In the present study, a Persian version of the dynamic spatial-quick speech in noise (DS-QSIN) has been developed with respect to all possible factors affecting the test and to run five lists for normal hearing subjects and assessment of reliability.
Methods: To construct five new lists according to the original quick speech in noise (QSIN) test, we used frequent, familiar, and difficult words to construct unpredictable sentences. After determining the content and face validity of the sentences, 30 selected sentences were played using a DS-QSIN software for 35 subjects aged 18–25 years. The reliability of the test was assessed after repeating the test after two weeks.
Results: According to expert judges, these 30 sentences showed acceptable content and face validity with the changes. The average signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) loss of five lists was –5.2 dB. No significant difference was seen between men and women in all lists. The results indicate no difference in the average SNR loss between the five lists. Regarding the reliability assessment, the test-retest correlation coefficient was 0.5 to 0.7 (p<0.05). The intra-class correlation coefficient between test-retest was statistically significant (p>0.001) and confirmed that the lists have high reliability and repeatability.
Conclusion: DS-QSIN test showed good validity and reliability and can be helpful in diagnosis and selecting the best method for rehabilitation of people with a spatial hearing disorder.
 Glyde H, Hickson L, Cameron S, Dillon H. Problems hearing in noise in older adults: a review of spatial processing disorder. Trends Amplif. 2011;15(3):116-26. [DOI:10.1177/1084713811424885]
 Hind SE, Haines-Bazrafshan R, Benton CL, Brassington W, Towle B, Moore DR. Prevalence of clinical referrals having hearing thresholds within normal limits. Int J Audiol. 2011;50(10):708-16. [DOI:10.3109/14992027.2011.582049]
 Bamiou DE, Musiek FE, Luxon LM. Aetiology and clinical presentations of auditory processing disorders--a review. Arch Dis Child. 2001;85(5):361-5. [DOI:10.1136/adc.85.5.361]
 Silman S, Silverman CA, Emmer MB. Central auditory processing disorders and reduced motivation: three case studies. J Am Acad Audiol. 2000;11(2):57-63.
 Golding M, Carter N, Mitchell P, Hood LJ. Prevalence of central auditory processing (CAP) abnormality in an older Australian population: the Blue Mountains Hearing Study. J Am Acad Audiol. 2004;15(9):633-42. [DOI:10.3766/jaaa.15.9.4]
 Dubno JR, Ahlstrom JB, Horwitz AR. Binaural advantage for younger and older adults with normal hearing. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2008;51(2):539-56. [DOI:10.1044/1092-4388(2008/039)]
 Glyde H, Buchholz JM, Dillon H, Cameron S, Hickson L. The importance of interaural time differences and level differences in spatial release from masking. J Acoust Soc Am. 2013;134(2):EL147-52. [DOI:10.1121/1.4812441]
 Stavrinos G, Iliadou VV, Pavlou M, Bamiou DE. Remote microphone hearing aid use improves classroom listening, without adverse effects on spatial listening and attention skills, in
children with auditory processing disorder: a randomized controlled trial. Front Neurosci. 2020;14:904. [DOI:10.3389/fnins.2020.00904]
 Valente M, Van Vliet D. The Independent Hearing Aid Fitting Forum (IHAFF) Protocol. Trends Amplif. 1997 Mar;2(1):6-35. [DOI:10.1177/108471389700200102]
 Adams EM, Moore RE. Effects of speech rate, background noise, and simulated hearing loss on speech rate judgment and speech intelligibility in young listeners. J Am Acad Audiol. 2009;20(1):28-39. [DOI:10.3766/jaaa.20.1.3]
 Anderson S, Kraus N. Auditory training: evidence for neural plasticity in older adults. Perspect Hear Hear Disord Res Res Diagn. 2013;17:37-57. [DOI:10.1044/hhd17.1.37]
 Brungart DS, Sheffield BM, Kubli LR. Development of a test battery for evaluating speech perception in complex listening environments. J Acoust Soc Am. 2014;136(2):777-90. [DOI:10.1121/1.4887440]
 Warren LR, Wagener JW, Herman GE. Binaural analysis in the aging auditory system. J Gerontol. 1978;33(5):731-6. [DOI:10.1093/geronj/33.5.731]
 Moosavi A, Hosseini Dastgerdi Z, Lotfi Y, Mehrkian S, Bakhshi E, Khavar Ghazalani B. Auditory lateralization ability in children with (central) auditory processing disorder. Iranian Rehabilitation Journal. 2014;12(1):31-7.
 Lotfi Y, Samadi-Qaleh-Juqy Z, Moosavi A, Sadjedi H, Bakhshi E. The effects of spatial auditory training on speech perception in noise in the elderly. Crescent J Med Biol Sci. 2020;7(1):40-6.
 Delphi M, Zamiri F, Doosti A, Bayat A. [Comparison of spatial hearing ability between young adults and elders with weakness in perception of speech-in-noise: a questionnaire study]. J Rehab Med. 2018;7(3):255-62. Persian. [DOI:10.22037/JRM.2018.110959.1653]
 Assi SM. Farsi linguistic database (FLDB). International Journal of Lexicography. 1997;10(3):5.
 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 Vestib Res. 2015;24(4):234.
 Wilson RH, McArdle RA, Smith SL. An evaluation of the BKB-SIN, HINT, QuickSIN, 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)]
 Gahl S, Yao Y, Johnson K. Why reduce? Phonological neighborhood density and phonetic reduction in spontaneous speech. Journal of memory and language. 2012;66(4):789-806. [DOI:10.1016/j.jml.2011.11.006]
 Parbery-Clark A, Skoe E, Lam C, Kraus N. Musician enhancement for speech-in-noise. Ear Hear. 2009;30(6):653-61. [DOI:10.1097/AUD.0b013e3181b412e9]
 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]
 Khalili M, Fatahi J, Hajiabolhassan F, Tahaei AA, Jalaei S. Test-retest reliability and list equivalency of the Persian quick speech in noise test. JMR. 2010;3(3-4):16-21.
 Brown DK, Cameron S, Martin JS, Watson C, Dillon H. The North American Listening in Spatialized Noise-Sentences Test (NA LiSN-S): Normative data and test-retest reliability studies for adolescents and young adults. J Am Acad Audiol. 2010;21(10):629-41. [DOI:10.3766/jaaa.21.10.3]
 McArdle RA, Wilson RH. Homogeneity of the 18 Quick SIN™ lists. J Am Acad Audiol. 2006;17(3):157-67. [DOI:10.3766/jaaa.17.3.2]
 Calais LL, Russo ICP, de Carvalhu Borges ACL. Performance of elderly in a speech in noise test. Pro Fono. 2008;20(3):147-53. [DOI:10.1590/S0104-56872008000300002]
 Wiley TL, Cruickshanks KJ, Nondahl DM, Tweed TS, Klein R, Klein BE. Aging and word recognition in competing message. J Am Acad Audiol. 1998 Jun;9(3):191-8.
 Yund EW, Woods DL. Content and procedural learning in repeated sentence tests of speech perception. Ear Hear. 2010;31(6):769-78. [DOI:10.1097/AUD.0b013e3181e68e4a]
|Issue||Vol 31 No 1 (2022)|
|Quick speech in noise test signal to noise ratio loss dynamic spatial noise equivalency reliability|
|Rights and permissions|
|This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.|