Download PDF
J Am Acad Audiol 2021; 32(08): 547-554
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1732440
Research Article

Pediatric Arabic Closed-Set Word-Recognition Test: Development and Evaluation of Psychometric Characteristics

Soha N. Garadat
1   Department of Hearing and Speech Sciences, The University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan
,
Ana'am Alkharabsheh
1   Department of Hearing and Speech Sciences, The University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan
,
Nihad A. Almasri
2   Department of Physiotherapy, The University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan
,
Abdulrahman Hagr
3   King ENT department Abdullah Ear Specialist Center, College of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
› Author Affiliations Funding This research was funded by the Deanship of Research at the University of Jordan.
› Further Information
Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Corrected by:

Erratum: Pediatric Arabic Closed-Set Word-Recognition Test: Development and Evaluation of Psychometric CharacteristicsJ Am Acad Audiol 2021; 32(08): e1-e1
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1759699

Abstract

Background Speech audiometry materials are widely available in many different languages. However, there are no known standardized materials for the assessment of speech recognition in Arabic-speaking children.

Purpose The aim of the study was to develop and validate phonetically balanced and psychometrically equivalent monosyllabic word recognition lists for children through a picture identification task.

Research Design A prospective repeated-measure design was used. Monosyllabic words were chosen from children's storybooks and were evaluated for familiarity. The selected words were then divided into four phonetically balanced word lists. The final lists were evaluated for homogeneity and equivalency.

Study Sample Ten adults and 32 children with normal hearing sensitivity were recruited.

Data Collection and Analyses Lists were presented to adult subjects in 5 dB increment from 0 to 60 dB hearing level. Individual data were then fitted using a sigmoid function from which the 50% threshold, slopes at the 50% points, and slopes at the 20 to 80% points were derived to determine list psychometric properties. Lists were next presented to children in two separate sessions to assess their equivalency, validity, and reliability. Data were subjected to a mixed design analysis of variance.

Results No statistically significant difference was found among the word lists.

Conclusion This study provided an evidence that the monosyllabic word lists had comparable psychometric characteristics and reliability. This supports that the constructed speech corpus is a valid tool that can be used in assessing speech recognition in Arabic-speaking children.

Keywords

Arabic language - speech audiometry - speech recognition assessment - phonetically balanced word list - psychometric function

Disclaimer

Any mention of a product, service, or procedure in the Journal of the American Academy of Audiology does not constitute an endorsement of the product, service, or procedure by the American Academy of Audiology.




Publication History

Received: 12 March 2021

Accepted: 25 May 2021

Article published online:
29 December 2021

© 2021. American Academy of Audiology. This article is published by Thieme.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Gopinath B, Hickson L, Schneider J. et al. Hearing-impaired adults are at increased risk of experiencing emotional distress and social engagement restrictions five years later. Age Ageing 2012; 41 (05) 618-623
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Canty P. Speech audiometry in acoustic neuroma. J Laryngol Otol 1978; 92 (10) 843-851
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Dunn CC, Walker EA, Oleson J. et al. Longitudinal speech perception and language performance in pediatric cochlear implant users: the effect of age at implantation. Ear Hear 2014; 35 (02) 148-160
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Sereda M, Hoare DJ, Nicholson R, Smith S, Hall DA. Consensus on hearing aid candidature and fitting for mild hearing loss, with and without tinnitus: Delphi review. Ear Hear 2015; 36 (04) 417-429
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Liu S, Wang F, Chen P. et al. Assessment of outcomes of hearing and speech rehabilitation in children with cochlear implantation. J Otol 2019; 14 (02) 57-62
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Wilson RH, McArdle R. Speech signals used to evaluate functional status of the auditory system. J Rehabil Res Dev 2005; 42 (04, Suppl 2): 79-94
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 McKay S. Managing children with mild and unilateral hearing loss. In: Madel J, Flexer C. eds. Pediatric Audiology: Diagnosis, Technology and Management. New York, NY: Thieme; 2008: 291-298
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 8 Madell J. Using speech perception testing to maximize auditory performance. Volta Voices 2007; 14: 16-20
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 9 Tyler RS. Cochlear implants and the deaf culture. Am J Audiol 1993; 2 (01) 26-32
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Madell J. Pediatric amplification: Using speech perception to achieve best outcomes. Audiology Online. Retrieved from www.audiologyonline.com 2011
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Ross M, Lerman J. A picture identification test for hearing-impaired children. J Speech Hear Res 1970; 13 (01) 44-53
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Elliott LL, Katz D. Development of a New Children's Test of Speech Discrimination [Technical Manual]. St. Louis, MO: Auditec; 1980
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 13 Kirk KI, Pisoni DB, Osberger MJ. Lexical effects on spoken word recognition by pediatric cochlear implant users. Ear Hear 1995; 16 (05) 470-481
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Garadat SN, Litovsky RY. Speech intelligibility in free field: spatial unmasking in preschool children. J Acoust Soc Am 2007; 121 (02) 1047-1055
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Kilman L, Zekveld A, Hällgren M, Rönnberg J. The influence of non-native language proficiency on speech perception performance. Front Psychol 2014; 5: 651
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Mendel LL, Pousson M, Bass JK, Lunsford RE, McNiece C. Spanish pediatric speech recognition threshold test. Am J Audiol 2019; 28 (03) 597-604
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Hebert R, Picard M. Test de discrimination de la parole. Longueil: Prolingua; 1979
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Neumann K, Baumeister N, Baumann U, Sick U, Euler HA, Weissgerber T. Speech audiometry in quiet with the Oldenburg sentence test for children. Int J Audiol 2012; 51 (03) 157-163
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Genovese E, Orzan E, Turrini M, Babighian G, Arslan E. [Speech perception test in Italian language for profoundly deaf children]. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital 1995; 15 (05) 383-390
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Zheng Y, Meng ZL, Wang K, Tao Y, Xu K, Soli SD. Development of the Mandarin early speech perception test: children with normal hearing and the effects of dialect exposure. Ear Hear 2009; 30 (05) 600-612
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Zakzouk S. Consanguinity and hearing impairment in developing countries: a custom to be discouraged. J Laryngol Otol 2002; 116 (10) 811-816
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Alusi HA, Hinchcliffe R, Ingham B, Knight JJ, North C. Arabic speech audiometry. Audiology 1974; 13 (03) 212-230
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Ashoor AA, Prochazka Jr T. Saudi Arabic speech audiometry. Audiology 1982; 21 (06) 493-508
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 24 Ladefoged P, Maddieson I. The Sounds of the World's Languages. Oxford: Blackwell; 1996
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 25 Cameron-Faulkner T, Lieven E, Tomasello M. A construction-based analysis of child directed speech. Cogn Sci 2003; 27: 843-873
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 26 Pine JM, Martindale H. Syntactic categories in the speech of young children: the case of the determiner. J Child Lang 1996; 23 (02) 369-395
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 27 Lieven EVM. Crosslinguistic and cross-cultural aspects of language addressed to children. In: Gallaway C, Richards BJ. eds. Input and Interaction in Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1994
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 28 Garadat SN, Abdulbaqi KJ, Haj-Tas MA. The development of the University of Jordan word recognition test. Int J Audiol 2017; 56 (06) 424-430
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 29 Wilson RH, Carter AS. Relation between slopes of word recognition psychometric functions and homogeneity of the stimulus materials. J Am Acad Audiol 2001; 12 (01) 7-14
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 30 Wilson RH, 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 (05) 430-433
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 31 Tillman TW, Carhart R. An expanded test for speech discrimination utilizing CNC monosyllabic words. Northwestern University Auditory Test No. 6. SAM-TR-66-55. Tech Rep SAM-TR 1966; 1-12
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 32 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 (01) 47-66
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 33 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 (01) 60-64
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 34 Weisleder P, Hodgson WR. Evaluation of four Spanish word-recognition-ability lists. Ear Hear 1989; 10 (06) 387-392
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 35 Harris RW, Nielson WS, McPherson DL, Skarzynski H, Eggett DL. Psychometrically equivalent Polish monosyllabic word recognition materials spoken by male and female talkers. Audiofonologia 2004; 25: 16-31
    Search in Google Scholar