Download PDF
J Am Acad Audiol 2000; 11(09): 489-493
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1748141
Original Article

The Question of Phonetic Balance in Word Recognition Testing

Frederick N. Martin
Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas
,
Craig A. Champlin
Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas
,
Desirée D. Perez
Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
  PDF Download  Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Twenty subjects with normal hearing and 15 subjects with mild-to-moderate sensorineural hearing losses were tested with eight lists of words using monosyllabic pronunciation to determine word recognition scores. Four of the lists were taken from Northwestern University Test No. 6 and four were simply made up by randomly selecting words from a dictionary. All of the word lists were used to determine performance-intensity functions. No clinically meaningful differences were observed among the lists.

Abbreviations: ANOVA = analysis of variance, NU-6 = Northwestern University Auditory Test No. 6, PB = phonemically/phonetically balanced, SRT = speech recognition threshold, WRS = word recognition score

Key Words

Phonemically balanced word list - phonetically balanced word list - word recognition score


Publication History

Article published online:
14 April 2022

© 2000. 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

  • American National Standards Institute. (1996). American National Standard Specification for Audiometers. (ANSI S3.6–1996). New York: ANSI.
  • Bess FH. (1983). Clinical assessment of speech recognition. In: Konkle D, Rintelmann W, eds. Principles of Speech Audiometry Baltimore: University Park Press, 127–202.
  • Egan J. (1948). Articulation testing methods. Laryngoscope 58:955–991.
  • Eldert E, Davis H. (1951). The articulation function of patients with conductive deafness. Laryngoscope 61:891–909.
  • Elpern BS. (1961). The relative stability of half-list and full-list discrimination tests. Laryngoscope 71:30–35.
  • Engelberg Μ. (1968). Test-retest variability in speech discrimination testing. Laryngoscope 78:1582–1589.
  • Grubb P. (1963a). Phoneme analysis of half-list speech discrimination tests. J Speech Hear Res 6:271–275.
  • Grubb P. (1963b). Considerations in the use of half-list speech discrimination tests. J Speech Hear Res 6:294–297.
  • Hirsh I, Davis H, Silverman SR, Reynolds E, Eldert E, Benson R. (1952). Development of materials for speech audiometry. J Speech Hear Disord 17:321–337.
  • Lehiste I, Peterson G. (1959). Linguistic considerations and intelligibility. J Acoust Soc Am 31:280–286.
  • Luce PA. (1986). A computational analysis of uniqueness points in auditory word recognition. Percept Psychophys 39:155–159.
  • Martin FN, Champlin CA, Chambers JA. (1998). Seventh survey of audiometric practices in the United States. J Am Acad Audiol 9:95–104.
  • Pisoni D. (1985). Speech perception. Some new directions in research and theory. J Acoust Soc Am 78:381–388.
  • Resnick D. (1962). Reliability of the twenty-five word phonetically balanced lists. J Auditory Res 2:5–12.
  • Ross M, Huntington D. (1962). Concerning the reliability and equivalency of the CID W-22 auditory tests. J Auditory Res 2:220–228.
  • Studebaker GA. (1985). A "rationalized" arc sine transformation. J Speech Hear Res 28:455–462.
  • Thornton A, Raffin M. (1978). Speech discrimination scores modeled as a binomial variable. J Speech Hear Res 21:507–518.
  • Tillman TW, Carhart R, Wilber L. (1963). An Expanded Test for Speech Discrimination Utilizing CNC Monosyllabic Words. Northwestern University Auditory Test No. 6. Technical Report, SAM-TR-66–55. Brooks Air Force Base, TX: USAF School of Aerospace Medicine, Aerospace Medical Division (AFSC).