Document Type: Original Articles

Authors

Abstract

Background: One of the common problems of those who refer to audiology clinics, is difficulty of hearing in noisy conditions. Different tests have been developed for diagnosis and quantification of reduced ability of speech perception in noise and the Quick Speech-in-Noise test is one of the most appropriate of them. The goal of the present study was to develop and validate the Persian version of the Quick Speech-in-Noise Test in normal, Persian speaking, 18-25 year-old participants.Methods: This study had two main stages: first, developing the test materials and determining the content validity and the second, determining the equivalency of the test material lists, and assessing the reliability of them.In the first stage, sentences having content validity were developed and recorded. In the second stage,in order to determine list equivalency, the lists were presented to 60 Persian-speaking (gender balanced), 18-25 year-old students and the average SNR-50 for each list was calculated using the Spearman-Kärber formula. In order to determine the reliability of the test, the test was again administered to15of the primary participants, two weeks later.Results: among80 sentences developed, 60 received enough credits from audiologists and speech therapists. Average SNR-50 in the Persian language was calculated as -0.25 dB. Thirty six content valid sentences, according to special criteria, were divided into six lists each containing 6sentences. The SNR-50 for each list revealed that lists number 2,3, 4and 5 were equivalent. Examination of test-retest reliability indicated that lists number 1,2,3,4 and 6 were reliable (P<0.05).Conclusion: Present study was developing three equivalent and reliable lists (number 2,3,4) for the Persian version of the Q-SIN test which are useful for diagnosing and selecting the best rehabilitation method for people with reduced speech perception in noise.

Keywords

  1. Gussekloo, J., et al., Auditory rehabilitation of older people from the general population--the Leiden 85-plus study. British Journal of General Practice, 2003. 53(492): p. 536-540.
  2. Gopinath, B., et al., Hearing-impaired adults are at increased riskof experiencing emotional distress and social engagement restrictions five years later. Age and Ageing, 2012. 41(5): p. 618-623.
  3. Kochkin, S., MarkeTrak V:" Why my hearing aids are in the drawer": The consumers' perspective. The Hearing Journal, 2000. 53(2): p. 34-36.
  4. Geffner, D., central auditory processing disorder definition ,description,and behaviors, in auditory processing disorder assessment management ,and treatmentplural publishing united states of America by McNaughton and Gunn.2007. p. 25-30
  5. Cord, M.T., et al., Performance of directional microphone hearing aids in everyday life. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 2002. 13(6): p. 295-307.
  6. Geffner, d., management strategyies, in auditory processing disorder assessment management ,and treatment 2007, plural publishing united states of America by McNaughton and Gunn. p. 207-215.
  7. Marni, L.J., J.B. Teri, and B. Cassie, Audiology assessment in auditory processing disorder assessment management ,and treatment 2007, plural publishing united states of America by McNaughton and Gunn. p. 76-84.
  8. Taylor, B., Speech‐in‐noise tests: How and why to include them in your basic test battery. The Hearing Journal, 2003. 56(1): p. 40-42.
  9. Wilson, R.H., R.A. McArdle, and S.L. Smith, An evaluation of the BKB-SIN, HINT, QuickSIN, and WIN materials on listeners with normal hearing and listeners with hearing loss. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 2007. 50(4): p. 844-856.
  10. Walden, T.C. and B.E. Walden, Predicting success with hearing aids in everyday living. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 2004. 15(5): p. 342-352.
  11. .Shayanmehr, S., et al., Development, validity and reliability of Persian quick speech in noise test with steady noise. Auditory and Vestibular Research, 2015. 24(4): p. 234-244.
  12. KhaliliM, FattahiJ,HajiabolhassanF,TahaaieAK,JalaieSH.,Test-retest reliability and equivalency of the persian Quick Speech in Noise Test.in persian. Modera Rehabilitation, 2010. (3): p.16-21.
  13. Killion, M.C., et al., Development of a quick speech-in-noise test for measuring signal-to-noise ratio loss in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 2004. 116(4): p. 2395-2405
  14. Bentler, R.A., List equivalency and test-retest reliability of the speech in noise test. American Journalof Audiology, 2000. 9(2): p. 84-100.
  15. -Calais, Lucila Leal, Russo, Ieda Chaves Pacheco, Borges, Alda Christina Lopes de Carvalho., Performance of elderly in a speech in noise test.Journal of Pro-Fono Revista de Atualização Cientifica. 2008. 20(3): p. 147-152
  16. McArdle, R.A. and R.H. Wilson, Homogeneity of the 18 QuickSIN™ lists. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 2006. 17(3): p. 157-167.
  17. Wilson, R. and R. Mcardle, speech in noise measures as necessary components of routine audiologic evaluations and auditory processing disorder evaluations, in Controversies in Central Auditory Processing Disorder (CAPD). 2009, Plural Publishing, Incorporated. p. 151-168.
  18. Ringleb, S., et al. Development and PreliminaryTesting of a Rehabilitation Game to Improve Listening in Background Noise. in ASME 2013 Summer Bioengineering Conference. 2013. American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
  19. -Fikret‐Pasa, Selda. The effect of compression ratio on speech intelligibility and quality. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.1994.2992