Download PDF
J Am Acad Audiol 2000; 11(02): 91-96
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1748015
Original Article

Interlist Equivalency of the Northwestern University Auditory Test No. 6 in Quiet and Noise with Adult Hearing-Impaired Individuals

K. Blair Stockley
School of Human Communication Disorders, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia
,
Walter B. Green
School of Human Communication Disorders, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
  PDF Download  Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

The purpose of the study was to determine the influence of sensorineural hearing loss and broadband noise on the interlist equivalency of the Northwestern University Auditory Test No. 6 (NU-6). There were two groups of participants: the first group consisted of 14 adults with mild-to-moderate hearing loss (mean age = 56 years; SD = 4.83); the second group consisted of 11 age-matched, normal-hearing individuals (mean age = 55 years; SD = 4.69). Each group heard the four lists of the NU-6 in quiet and in broadband noise at four signal-to-noise ratios (–10 dB, –5 dB, 0 dB, and +5 dB). The NU-6 stimuli were presented at 35-dB sensation level relative to each listener's speech reception threshold. Results indicated that, for both groups, there was a significant main effect for NU-6 list. Post hoc single degree of freedom contrasts revealed that this main effect was due to significant differences between some of the lists when presented in background noise. There were no differences between the lists in quiet. Because of the findings of differences between some of the lists in noise, the authors suggested that clinicians or researchers use caution when comparing scores obtained from two different NU-6 lists over time. That is, if scores from two lists are different, it is important for the clinician to determine whether this disparity is due to a change in word recognition ability or simply due to a difference between the lists.

Abbreviations: NU-6 = Northwestern University Auditory Test No. 6, SNR = signal-to-noise ratio, SRT = speech reception threshold

Key Words

Broadband noise - list equivalency - normal hearing - Northwestern University Auditory Test No. 6 - sensorineural hearing loss - word recognition


Publication History

Article published online:
06 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. (1977). Criteria for Permissable Ambient Noise during Audiometric Testing. (ANSI S3.12-1977). New York: ANSI.
  • Beattie R. (1989). Word recognition functions for the CID W-22 test in multitalker noise for normal hearing and hearing impaired subjects. J Speech Hear Disord 54:20–32.
  • Chermak GD, Wagner DP, Bendal RB. (1984). Equivalent forms and split-half reliability of the NU-CHIPS in noise. J Speech Hear Disord 49:196–201.
  • Chermak GD, Wagner DP, Bendal RB. (1988). Interlist equivalence of the Word Intelligibility by Picture Identification Test administered in broad-band noise. Audiology 27:324–333.
  • Cohen RL, Keith RW. (1975). Use of low pass noise in word recognition testing. J Speech Hear Res 19:48–54.
  • Cooper JC, Cutts BP. (1971). Speech discrimination in noise. J Speech Hear Res 14:332–337.
  • Crandall CC. (1991). Individual differences in speech recognition ability: implications for hearing aid selection. Ear Hear 12(Suppl):100s–108s.
  • Department of Veterans Affairs. (1989). Speech Recognition and Identification Materials, Disc 1.1 [compact disc]. Long Beach, CA: Department of Veterans Affairs.
  • Findlay RC. (1976). Auditory dysfunction accompanying noise induced hearing loss. J Speech Hear Disord 151:374–380.
  • Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR. (1975). "Mini Mental State." A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res 12:189–198.
  • Gengel RW, Miller L, Rosenthal E. (1981). Between and within listener variability in response to CID W-22 presented in noise. Ear Hear 2:78–81.
  • Keith RW, Talis HP. (1972). The effects of white noise on PB scores of normal and hearing impaired listeners. Audiology 11:177–186.
  • Loven KC, Hawkins DB. (1983). Interlist equivalency of the CID W-22 word lists presented in quiet and noise. Ear Hear 4:91–97.
  • Martin FN, Champlin CA, Chambers JA. (1998). Seventh survey of audiometric practices in the United States. J Am Acad Audiol 9:95–104.
  • Martin FN, Morris LJ. (1989). Current audiologic practices in the United States. Hear J 42:25–44.
  • Martin FN, Sides DG. (1985). Survey of current audio-metric practices. ASHA 27:29–36.
  • Moore BCJ. (1991). Characterization and simulation of impaired hearing: implications for hearing aid design. Ear Hear 12(Suppl):154s–161s.
  • Quist-Hanssen Sv, Thorud E, Aasand G. (1979). Noise induced hearing loss and the comprehension of speech in noise. Acta Otolaryngol Suppl 360:90–95.
  • Peterson GE, Lehiste I. (1962). Revised CNC lists for auditory tests. J Speech Hear Disord 27:62–70.
  • Rintelmann WF, Schumaier DR, Jetty AJ, Burchfield SB, Beasley DS, Mosher NA, Moher RA, Penley ED. (1974). Six experiments on speech discrimination utilizing CNC
  • monosyllabic words (Northwestern University Auditory Test No. 6). J Auditory Res 2(Suppl):–30.
  • Ripply JV, Dancer JE, Pittinger JB. (1983). List equivalency of the CID Everyday Sentences (Harris Revision) under three signal-to-noise ratios. Ear Hear 4:251–254.
  • Schubert GW, Stenhjem BW. (1978). A reliability study of the Goldman-Fristoe-Woodcock test of auditory discrimination with learning disabled children. Acta Symbol 7(9):43–56.
  • Sherbecoe RL, Studebaker GA, Crawford MR. (1993). Speech spectra for six recorded monosyllable word lists. Ear Hear 14:104–111.
  • Sperry JL, Wiley TL, Chial MR. (1997). Word recognition performance in various background competitors. J Am Acad Audiol 8:71–80.
  • Stach BA, Loiselle LH, Jerger J. (1991). Special hearing aid considerations in elderly patients with auditory processing disorders. Ear Hear (Supp1 6):131S–138S.
  • Stuart A. (1995). Temporal Resolution of Cochlear Output Channels in Normal Hearing and Hearing Impaired Listeners. Doctoral dissertation, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
  • Stuart A. (1998). Northwestern University Auditory Test No. 6 (CNC List 1A-4A), Continuous and Interrupted Noise [compact disc]. Greenville, NC: Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, School of Allied Health Sciences, East Carolina University.
  • Stuart A, Green WB, Phillips DP, Stenstrom R. (1994). List equivalency of the Northwestern University Auditory Test No. 6 in quiet and in continuous broad band noise. J Speech Lang Pathol Audiol 18:121–125.
  • Studebaker GA. (1985). A rationalized arcsine transform. J Speech Hear Res 28:455–462.
  • Tillman TW, Carhart R, Wilber L. (1963). A test for speech discrimination composed of CNC monosyllabic words (N.U. auditory test no. 4) SAM-TDR-62-135. Brooks Air Force Base, TX: USAF School and Aerospace Medicine.
  • Tillman TW, Carhart R. (1966). An Expanded Test for Speech Discrimination Using 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.
  • Wilson RH, Coley KE, Haenel JL, Browning KM. (1976). Northwestern University Auditory Test No. 6: normative and comparative intelligibility functions. J Am Audiol Soc 1:221–228.
  • Wilson RH, Zizz CA, Shanks JE, Causey GD. (1990). Normative data in quiet, broadband noise, and competing message for the Northwestern University Auditory Test No. 6 by a female speaker. J Speech Hear Disord 55:771–778.