Recorded Word Recognition Testing Is Worth the Time.

IF 1.4 4区医学 Q3 AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY

American Journal of Audiology Pub Date : 2024-12-03 DOI:10.1044/2024_AJA-24-00080

Allie Austin, Kathryn Ladner, Lisa Lucks Mendel

{"title":"Recorded Word Recognition Testing Is Worth the Time.","authors":"Allie Austin, Kathryn Ladner, Lisa Lucks Mendel","doi":"10.1044/2024_AJA-24-00080","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: The goal of this study was to provide evidence of the inherent variability associated with monitored live voice (MLV) presentation methods and encourage audiologists to more closely follow best practice of using recorded stimuli. To accomplish the goal, administration times for word recognition testing were compared between MLV and MP3 recorded stimuli presented directly from an audiometer (computer assisted, CA). Furthermore, the variability of administration time across testers was evaluated.Method: Fifty-word NU-6 lists were presented via MLV and CA to listeners with typical hearing (TH; defined as a four-frequency [500, 1000, 2000, and 4000 Hz] pure-tone average [PTA] of 20 dB HL or better) and hearing loss (HL; defined as a four-frequency PTA poorer than 20 dB HL). Audiologists and doctor of audiology students administered the word lists. Administration times were compared between the two presentation methods (MLV and CA).Results: MLV administration time was significantly shorter than CA presentation time for both the TH and HL groups. There was also a significant difference in word recognition scores (WRS) between the TH and HL groups only when using the CA method. Most notably, there was significantly more variability in the administration time for MLV presentation across testers compared to the CA method. Data were compared to Mendel and Owen (2011), and MLV administration time was found to be significantly shorter than CA and compact disk (CD) administration time.Conclusions: Despite the shorter average administration time for MLV presentation compared to CA or CD, the significant variability in administration time among individual testers limits the clinical value of the test results. In addition, WRS for those with hearing loss were significantly poorer than those with TH when using CA but not for MLV, indicating that MLV is not sensitive to the presence of sensorineural hearing loss. Thus, using recorded word recognition is strongly recommended.","PeriodicalId":49241,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Audiology","volume":" ","pages":"1-8"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Audiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1044/2024_AJA-24-00080","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: The goal of this study was to provide evidence of the inherent variability associated with monitored live voice (MLV) presentation methods and encourage audiologists to more closely follow best practice of using recorded stimuli. To accomplish the goal, administration times for word recognition testing were compared between MLV and MP3 recorded stimuli presented directly from an audiometer (computer assisted, CA). Furthermore, the variability of administration time across testers was evaluated.

Method: Fifty-word NU-6 lists were presented via MLV and CA to listeners with typical hearing (TH; defined as a four-frequency [500, 1000, 2000, and 4000 Hz] pure-tone average [PTA] of 20 dB HL or better) and hearing loss (HL; defined as a four-frequency PTA poorer than 20 dB HL). Audiologists and doctor of audiology students administered the word lists. Administration times were compared between the two presentation methods (MLV and CA).

Results: MLV administration time was significantly shorter than CA presentation time for both the TH and HL groups. There was also a significant difference in word recognition scores (WRS) between the TH and HL groups only when using the CA method. Most notably, there was significantly more variability in the administration time for MLV presentation across testers compared to the CA method. Data were compared to Mendel and Owen (2011), and MLV administration time was found to be significantly shorter than CA and compact disk (CD) administration time.

Conclusions: Despite the shorter average administration time for MLV presentation compared to CA or CD, the significant variability in administration time among individual testers limits the clinical value of the test results. In addition, WRS for those with hearing loss were significantly poorer than those with TH when using CA but not for MLV, indicating that MLV is not sensitive to the presence of sensorineural hearing loss. Thus, using recorded word recognition is strongly recommended.

查看原文本刊更多论文

记录单词识别测试是值得花时间的。

目的：本研究的目的是提供与监测实时语音（MLV）呈现方法相关的内在变异性的证据，并鼓励听力学家更密切地遵循使用记录刺激的最佳实践。为了实现这一目标，我们比较了MLV和MP3录音刺激直接来自听力计（计算机辅助，CA）的单词识别测试的管理时间。此外，还评估了测试人员管理时间的可变性。方法：通过MLV和CA向听力正常的听者呈现50字NU-6表(TH；定义为四频[500,1000,2000和4000hz]纯音平均[PTA]为20db HL或更高)和听力损失(HL；定义为四频PTA小于20 dB HL)。听力学家和听力学博士学生管理单词列表。比较两种呈现方式（MLV和CA）的给药时间。结果：TH组和HL组MLV给药时间均明显短于CA呈现时间。仅当使用CA方法时，TH组和HL组之间的单词识别分数（WRS）也有显著差异。最值得注意的是，与CA方法相比，在跨测试人员的MLV呈现的管理时间上有更多的可变性。将数据与Mendel和Owen（2011）进行比较，发现MLV给药时间明显短于CA和CD给药时间。结论：尽管与CA或CD相比，MLV表现的平均给药时间较短，但个体测试者给药时间的显著差异限制了测试结果的临床价值。此外，使用CA时，听力损失组的WRS明显低于TH组，而MLV组则没有，说明MLV对感音神经性听力损失的存在不敏感。因此，强烈建议使用记录的单词识别。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

American Journal of Audiology AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY-OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY

CiteScore

3.00

自引率

16.70%

发文量

163

审稿时长

>12 weeks

期刊介绍： Mission: AJA publishes peer-reviewed research and other scholarly articles pertaining to clinical audiology methods and issues, and serves as an outlet for discussion of related professional and educational issues and ideas. The journal is an international outlet for research on clinical research pertaining to screening, diagnosis, management and outcomes of hearing and balance disorders as well as the etiologies and characteristics of these disorders. The clinical orientation of the journal allows for the publication of reports on audiology as implemented nationally and internationally, including novel clinical procedures, approaches, and cases. AJA seeks to advance evidence-based practice by disseminating the results of new studies as well as providing a forum for critical reviews and meta-analyses of previously published work. Scope: The broad field of clinical audiology, including audiologic/aural rehabilitation; balance and balance disorders; cultural and linguistic diversity; detection, diagnosis, prevention, habilitation, rehabilitation, and monitoring of hearing loss; hearing aids, cochlear implants, and hearing-assistive technology; hearing disorders; lifespan perspectives on auditory function; speech perception; and tinnitus.