Document Type : Original Articles


University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences


Background: One of the most common complaints expressed by individuals with hearing-impairment is the difficulty in speech perception in background noise. Different tests have been developed for the evaluation of reduced ability of speech perception in noise, and the Consonant-Vowel in noise test is one of the simplest one regard to speech materials. The goal of the present study was development and determined validity and reliability of the Persian version of the Consonant-Vowel in noise test, among 18 to 25 year old Persian speaking because of the lack of a Persian version of this test.Methods: This was a tool-making research that had 3 main stages: development of the Persian version of the Consonant-Vowel in noise test (4 lists and each list in 5 different signal to noise ratio), examination of its content validity, and its administration on a total of 50, 18 to 25 year normal hearing individuals (20 men /30 women) that selected by random sampling method, in order to examine the reliability of the test from the students of the University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences, Tehran, Iran. For descriptive reports, central tendencies and indices of dispersion were used and for statistics relations; Pearson correlation test, intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC), paired t-test and independent t-test were used. Results: The content validity ratio for each item was acceptable (CVR>0.62). The lists number 2, 3, and 4; and also the lists number 1 and 4 in the Consonant-Vowel in noise test, were highly correlated (P<0.05). The test-retest correlations were statistically significant at all signal-to-noise ratios (P<0.05). There was no significant differences between the scores of left and right ears (P>0.05) and also men’s and women’s scores (P>0.05). Participant's performance improved as the SNR increased. Conclusion: According to the study results, it can be concluded that the Persian version of the Consonant-Vowel in noise test has acceptable content validity and reliability, and can be used in clinical and research works.


  1. Parbery-Clark A,Skoe E, Lam C, Kraus N. Musician enhancement for speech-in-noise. Ear and hearing. 2009;30(6):653-61.
  2. Katz J, Medwetsky L, Burkard R, Hood L. Handbook of Clinical Audiology. 6th ed. New York: Baltimore: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2009, pp: 584-610.
  3. Lagace J, Jutras B, Gagne J-P. Auditory processing disorder and speech perception problems in noise: Finding the underlying origin. American journal of audiology. 2010;19(1):17-25.
  4. Jeffner D, Ross-Swain D. Auditory processing disorders: assessment, management and treatment. 1nd ed. United State of America: Plural Publishing; 2007, pp: 3-24.
  5. Zaar J, Jørgensen S, Dau T, editors. Modeling consonant perception in normal-hearing listeners. In Proceedings of the 7th Forum Acusticum. European Acoustics Association. 2014.
  6. Killion MC, Niquette PA, Gudmundsen GI, Revit LJ, Banerjee S. 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):2395-405.
  7. Wilson RH. Development of a speech-in-multitalker-babble paradigm to assess word-recognition performance. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology. 2003;14(9):453-70.
  8. Nilsson M, Soli SD, Sullivan JA. Development of the Hearing in Noise Test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 1994;95(2):1085-99.
  9. Kalikow DN, Stevens KN, Elliott LL. Development of a test of speech intelligibility in noise using sentence materials with controlled word predictability. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 1977;61(5):1337-51.
  10. Emami SF. Word Recognition Score in White Noise Test in Healthy listeners. Scholars Journal of Applied Medical Sciences. 2015; 3(1A):29-33.
  11. Shayanmehr S, Tahaei AA, Fatahi J, Jalaie Sh, Modarresi Y. Development, validity and reliabiliy of Persian quick speech in noise test with steady noise. The Journal of the Auditory and Vestibular Research. 2015;24(4):234-244.
  12. Wilson R, McArdle R, Smith S. An Evaluation of the BKB-SIN, HINT, Quick SIN and WIN Materials on Listeners with Normal Hearing and Listeners with Hearing Loss. The Journal of the Speech, Language, and Hearing Research. 2007. 50:844–856.
  13. Shobha N, Thomas T, Subbarao K. Experimental Evaluation of Improvement in Consonant Recognition for the Hearing-Impaired Listeners: Role Consonant-Vowel Intensity Ratio, Journal of Theoretical and Applied Information Technology, 2005-2009 JATIT, pp. 101-109.
  14. Ebbinghaus, E. Nonsense Syllable: Theory of Comprehension and Attention Wikipedia, Free Encyclopedia. 1879.
  15. Samareh Y. Phonetic in Farsi (in Persian). 2nd ed .Tehran: University publication center. 2006, pp: 27-102.
  16. Alwan A, Lo J, Zhu Q, editors. Human and machine recognition of nasal consonants in noise. 14th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences. 1999. 1:167-170.
  17. Hant JJ, Alwan A, editors. Predicting the perceptual confusion of synthetic stop consonants in noise. ICSLP; International Conference on Spoken Language Processing .2000; 3: 941-944.
  18. Li N, Loizou PC. The contribution of obstruent consonants and acoustic land marks to speech recognition in noise. J Acoust Soc Am. 2008; 124 (6): 3947–3958.
  19. Nureddini Z, Mohammadzadeh A, Ashrafi M, Tabatabai M, Jalilvand Karimi L. Recognition of stop consonants in babble noise in normal hearing individuals. The Journal of the Auditory and Vestibular Research. 2015; 24(1):31-37.
  20. Sbompato AF, Corteletti LCBJ, Moret AdLM, de Souza Jacob RT. Hearing in Noise Test Brazil: standardizationfor young adults with normal hearing. Brazilian journal of otorhinolaryngology. 2015;81(4):384-8.
  21. Shojaei E, Ashayeri H, Jafari Z, Dast Z, Reza M, Kamali K. Effect of signal to noise ratio on the speech perception ability of older adults. Medical Journal of The Islamic Republic of Iran (MJIRI). 2016;30(1):273-9.
  22. Calais LL, Russo IC, Borges AC. Performance of elderly in a speech in noise test. ProFono. 2008; 20(3):147-53.
  23. Wiley TL, Cruickshanks KJ, Nondahl DM, Tweed TS, Klein R, Klein BE. Aging and word recognition in competing message. J Am Acad Audiol. 1998; 9(3):191-8.