ORIGINAL ARTICLE
ASSESSMENT OF CLINICAL UTILITY OF PHONEMICALLY BALANCED WORD LISTS FOR ADULT SPEAKERS OF KANNADA
Puttabasappa Manjula 1, A-G,   Jawahar Antony 1, A-G,   Keelara Shivaraju Sharath Kumar 1, A-D,F-G,   Chinnaraj Geetha 1, A-G  
 
More details
Hide details
1
Department of Audiology, All India Institute of Speech and Hearing, Mysore-570006, Karnataka, India
A - Research concept and design; B - Collection and/or assembly of data; C - Data analysis and interpretation; D - Writing the article; E - Critical revision of the article; F - Final approval of article;
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Chinnaraj Geetha   

Geetha C., Reader in Audiology, Department of Audiology, All India Institute of Speech and Hearing, Manasagangotri, Mysore-570006, Karnataka, India, Email ID: geethamysore.cs@gmail.com
Publication date: 2020-04-09
 
J Hear Sci 2018;8(3):40–45
 
KEYWORDS
ABSTRACT
Objective:
The present study aimed at standardizing the phonemically balanced word lists in the Kannada language for adults developed by Manjula et al. (2015).

Materials and Methods:
Forty individuals with different degrees of sensorineural hearing loss were enrolled for the study. The word lists developed by Manjula et al. (2015) were presented monaurally under headphones at 40 dB SL (ref: PTA) in quiet. The number of correctly identified words was calculated for each list. The scores of all the lists in each group were statistically analyzed.

Results:
The results revealed that there is list equivalency within each group on repeated measures ANOVA. The statistical analysis also revealed that the speech identification scores reduced significantly with an increase in the severity of hearing loss on MANOVA.

Conclusions:
The lists developed by Manjula et al. (2015) are sensitive to different degrees of hearing loss. Hence, the lists can be a good speech identification tool for testing adults with hearing loss in routine speech identification testing, assessing hearing aid benefits, and for research purposes where multiple word lists are required.

 
REFERENCES (16)
1.
Thibodeau LM. Speech audiometry. In: Audiology Diagnosis, eds Roeser RJ, Valente M, Hosford-Dunn H. New York: Thieme Medical Publishers; 2000, pp 281-310.
 
2.
Gelfand SA. Essentials of Audiology. 3rd ed. New York: Thieme Medical Publishers; 2000, pp 239-73.
 
3.
Tyler RS. The use of speech perception tests in audiological rehabilitation: current and future research needs. J Rehab Res Dev, 1994; 27: 47-66.
 
4.
Levitt H, Resnick SB. Speech reception by the hearing impaired: methods of testing and the development of new tests. Scan Audiol, 1978; 107(6): 130.
 
5.
Kollmeier B, Wesselkamp M. Development and evaluation of German sentence tests for objective and subjective speech intelligibility assessment. J Acoust Soc Am, 1997; 102: 2412-21.
 
6.
Carhart R. Speech audiometry in clinical evaluation. Acta Otolaryngol 1952; 41: 18-42.
 
7.
Sagon R. The development of a phonetically balanced word recognition test in the Ilocano language. Independent Studies and Capstones, Paper 382. Program in Audiology and Communication Sciences, Washington University School of Medicine; 2006. http://digitalcommons.wustl.ed....
 
8.
Munthuli A, Sirimujalin P, Tantibundhit C, Onsuwan C, Kosawat K, Klangpornkun N. Constructing Thai phonetically balanced word recognition test in speech audiometry through large written corpora. Presented to 17th Oriental Chapter of the International Committee for the Co-ordination and Standardization of Speech Databases and Assessment Techniques (Oriental COCOSDA), Phuket, Thailand, 2014.
 
9.
Manjula P, Antony J, Kumar KSS, Geetha C. Development of phonemically balanced word lists in Kannada language for adults. J Hear Sci, 2015; 5(1): 22-30.
 
10.
Killion MC. SNR loss: “I can hear what people say but I cannot understand them”. Hear Review 1997; 4(12): 8-14.
 
11.
Dubno J R, Lee F, Klein AJ, Matthews LJ, Lam CF. Confidence limits of maximum word recognition scores. J Speech Hear Res, 1995; 38: 490-502.
 
12.
Beattie RC, Edgerton BJ, Svihovec D. A comparison of the Auditec of St Louis cassette recordings of NU-6 and CID W-22 on a normal-hearing population. J Speech Hear Dis, 1977; 42: 60-64.
 
13.
Moore BCJ, Huss M, Vickers DA, Glasberg BR, Alcantara JI. A test for the diagnosis of dead regions in the cochlea. Br J Audiol, 2000; 34: 205-224.
 
14.
Moore BCJ, Lynch C, Stone MA. Effects of the fitting parameters of a two-channel compression system on the intelligibility of speech in quiet and in noise. Br J Audiol, 1992; 26: 369-79.
 
15.
Plomp R. Noise, amplification, and compression: considerations of three main issues in hearing aid design. Ear Hear, 1994; 15: 2-12.
 
16.
Pekkerinan E, Salmivalli A, Suonpaa J. Effect of noise on word discrimination by subjects with impaired hearing, compared with those with normal hearing. Scand Audiol, 1990; 19: 31-6.