JSLHR
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Journal of Speech and Hearing Research Vol.27 32-48 March 1984.
© American Speech-Language-Hearing Association

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow My Folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bilger, R. C.
Right arrow Articles by Rzeczkowski, C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Bilger, R. C.
Right arrow Articles by Rzeczkowski, C.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Facebook   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Standardization of a Test of Speech Perception in Noise

R. C. Bilger 1
J. M. Nuetzel 1
W. M. Rabinowitz 1

C. Rzeczkowski 1

1 University of Illinois, Champaign

All 10 forms of the test of Speech Perception in Noise (SPIN) were presented to 128 listeners who had some degree of sensorineural hearing loss. Presentation of the speech track was at 50 dB above the estimated threshold for the babble track. Signal-to-babble ratio was 8 dB. Half of the subjects listened through headphones and half via loudspeaker. Half were tested in a single session and half in two sessions spaced 2–4 weeks apart. Two markers independently scored every test session. Statistical analyses indicate that transducer, number of visits, and order of test form presentation have little or no effect on test scores, and differences between markers, although significant, are quite small. The subtests consisting of items with strong contextual cues generate an average reliability coefficient of .91, whereas the value for the low-context subtests is .85. The 10 forms do not, however, constitute a set of equivalent forms, and there are large differences in mean performance on the low-context portions.

Submitted on July 27, 1982
Accepted on March 30, 1983


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Facebook Facebook   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
JSLHRHome page
P. C. M. Wong, A. K. Uppunda, T. B. Parrish, and S. Dhar
Cortical Mechanisms of Speech Perception in Noise
J Speech Lang Hear Res, August 1, 2008; 51(4): 1026 - 1041.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
All ASHA Journals AJA AJSLP JSLHR LSHSS
Copyright © 1984 by the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association.