The Effect of Visual Cues on Scoring of Clinical Word-Recognition Tests Purpose During routine clinical speech assessment, if the person being tested were to write down what he or she heard, it would not always match what the audiologist heard while scoring the listener's vocal responses (Nelson & Chaiklin, 1970). This study demonstrated a method to assess examiner accuracy and whether ... Research Article
Research Article  |   December 01, 2014
The Effect of Visual Cues on Scoring of Clinical Word-Recognition Tests
 
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Heekyung J. Han
    University of Minnesota
  • Robert S. Schlauch
    University of Minnesota
  • Aparna Rao
    University of Minnesota
  • Disclosure: The authors have declared that no competing interests existed at the time of publication.
    Disclosure: The authors have declared that no competing interests existed at the time of publication.×
  • Correspondence to Heekyung Han: hanxx671@umn.edu
  • Editor and Associate Editor: Larry Humes
    Editor and Associate Editor: Larry Humes×
Article Information
Hearing Disorders / Cultural & Linguistic Diversity / Research Articles
Research Article   |   December 01, 2014
The Effect of Visual Cues on Scoring of Clinical Word-Recognition Tests
American Journal of Audiology, December 2014, Vol. 23, 385-393. doi:10.1044/2014_AJA-14-0024
History: Received May 2, 2014 , Revised July 24, 2014 , Accepted August 4, 2014
 
American Journal of Audiology, December 2014, Vol. 23, 385-393. doi:10.1044/2014_AJA-14-0024
History: Received May 2, 2014; Revised July 24, 2014; Accepted August 4, 2014

Purpose During routine clinical speech assessment, if the person being tested were to write down what he or she heard, it would not always match what the audiologist heard while scoring the listener's vocal responses (Nelson & Chaiklin, 1970). This study demonstrated a method to assess examiner accuracy and whether speechreading cues reduce writedown–talkback errors.

Method Examiners were divided into 3 categories: normal hearing native speakers of English, normal hearing nonnative speakers of English, and native speakers with hearing loss. Each examiner assessed 4 normal-hearing listeners. Two NU-6 lists were presented to each listener; one was scored without visual cues and one with visual cues. Lists were presented at 50 dB HL in the presence of speech noise at 0 dB signal-to-noise ratio (SNR).

Results Results analyzed by percentage of correct phonemes and words revealed fewer writedown–talkback discrepancies for all 3 examiner groups when visual cues were added, with a substantial improvement for examiners with hearing loss.

Conclusion The finding of errors between talkback versus writedown scoring of lists for all of the examiners, even with visual cues, suggests a need for modification of the clinical word-recognition procedure for applications that potentially affect diagnosis, rehabilitation choices, or financial compensation.

Acknowledgments
This work was supported, in part, by a Charles E. Speaks Graduate Fellowship. We are grateful to Edward Carney for assistance with the statistics.
Order a Subscription
Pay Per View
Entire American Journal of Audiology content & archive
24-hour access
This Article
24-hour access