A SPONDEE LIST FOR DETERMINING RECEPTION THRESHOLD WITHOUT PRIOR FAMILIARIZATION
SPEECH
Marjorie Conn Marymount Manhattan College, New York, New York
Jess Dancer and Ira M. Ventry Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, New York
The purpose of this investigation was to select a list of spondees from the CID W-1 spondee word list that eliminates the need for familiarization but produces spondee thresholds equivalent to those obtained with familiarization. Forty-eight subjects with normal hearing responded to familiarized and unfamiliarized spondee words at their familiarized spondee threshold levels. Spondee words that were correctly identified most often without prior familiarization or whose correct response rates were least altered by familiarization were selected for the final list. Seventeen words were selected from the criteria of the present study; two of these words were excluded from the final list since they did not fall within the recommended 4-dB range. The 15 remaining spondee words without familiarization produced spondee thresholds equivalent to the entire CID W-1 list with familiarization in a direct comparison of the two lists in 20 subjects with normal hearing.
T h e 36 spondee words in the C I D a u d i t o r y tests W-1 a n d W-2 were selected f r o m a larger list of spondees (Psycho-Acoustic Laboratories, List 9) a n d were recorded i n an a t t e m p t to produce a s t a n d a r d list of spondee words homogenous w i t h respect to i n t e l l i g i b i l i t y ( H i r s h et al., 1952). A l t h o u g h these words are the most f r e q u e n t l y used test s t i m u l i for the clinical m e a s u r e m e n t of speech thresholds ( M a r t i n a n d P e n n i n g t o n , 1971), their h o m o g e n e i t y is still subject to question. C u r r y a n d Cox (1966) used subjects f a m i l i a r i z e d w i t h the W-1 words a n d f o u n d a m e a n 8.1-dB range between the most a n d least i n t e l l i g i b l e words. C u r r y a n d Cox consider this r a n g e a possible d e t r i m e n t to the r e l i a b i l i t y of spondee thresholds a n d r e c o m m e n d that the C I D lists be s h o r t e n e d to include 27 words f a l l i n g w i t h i n a more restricted 4-dB range. Despite the lack o[ item homogeneity, the step of f a m i l i a r i z a t i o n w i t h the spondee words prior to testing produces spondee thresholds w i t h h i g h testretest r e l i a b i l i t y a n d h i g h correlations to the two- a n d three-frequency puretone average ( C h a i k l i n a n d Ventry, 1964; C h a i k l i n , Dixon, a n d Font, 1967). J e r g e r et al. (1959) a n d T i l l m a n a n d J e r g e r (1959) investigated the use o[ 388
Downloaded From: https://jshd.pubs.asha.org/ by a University of Texas, Austin User on 03/27/2018 Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
CONN, DANCER, VENTRY. SPONDEE LIST
389
familiarized and unfamiliarized spondees for determining spondee thresholds. They found familiarized spondee thresholds both initially lower in their mean sound pressure level (SPL) values and less variable upon repeated testing. Investigators have shown, therefore, that familiarization with the test spondees appears to be an important step in the determination of spondee thresholds. In practice, familiarization is neither routinely stressed nor routinely conducted. Newby (1972) states, without further comment, that "Many audiologists have the patient read over a list of words that appear in the spondee test so that he is familiar with the vocabulary" (p. 130). Questionnaire data of Martin and Pennington (1971) indicate that approximately 50% of a random sampling of clinically certified audiologists (N of 290) usually do not familiarize patients with the spondees prior to determining spondee thresholds. It is assumed that audiologists who use unfamiliarized spondee words to determine a spondee threshold do so to save time. A timesaving rationale is insufficient reason for dismissing the significant differences pointed out in the literature between familiarized and unfamiliarized spondee thresholds. Since many clinicians do not familiarize patients with the spondee words, it would appear worthwhile to explore the possibility of selecting spondee words that eliminate the need for familiarization but produce spondee thresholds equivalent to those obtained with familiarization. T h e primary purpose of this study was to generate a list of spondee words that would eliminate the need for prior familiarization in determining spondee thresholds. METHOD
Subjects. Forty-eight adult subjects (26 female, 22 male; age range 16-74; mean age 41) served in the present study. All subjects were either patients seeing an otorhinolaryngologist or were accompanying such patients. Subjects were selected on the basis of the following criteria: (I) no previous hearing tests, either pure-tone or speech, (2) a 20-dB HL spondee threshold or better in the test ear, (3) no pure-tone threshold loss greater than 30 dB in the octave ranges between 250 Hz-4000 Hz, (4) a negative otoscopic examination in the test ear, (5) no history of severe noise exposure, and (6) no present complaints of ear distress (pain, tinnitus, pressure, and so forth). To preclude abruptly sloping audiograms, no contiguous-octave differences of greater than 15 dB were accepted. All subjects spoke English as their primary language. Materials. A taped recording of List E, along with the 1000 Hz calibration tone, was produced from the Hirsh CID W-1 master disc. T h e 36 spondee words of List E were arbitrarily divided into two lists of 18 words each: List 1 from the first 18 words of list E, List 2 from the remaining 18 words. Apparatus. T h e spondee words were delivered through the speech unit of a Beltone audiometer (Model 12D) to the subjects who were fitted with earphones (TDH-39) in cushions (MX/41). All testing was done in an IAG booth. Pure-tone stimuli were calibrated to ISO, 1964 standards, and a 19 dB SPL zero reference level was used for speech. T h e calibration was checked
Downloaded From: https://jshd.pubs.asha.org/ by a University of Texas, Austin User on 03/27/2018 Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
390
JOURNAL OF SPEECH AND HEARING DISORDERS
--
XL, 3
weekly with a Rudmose (RA 110) earphone coupler and did not vary from prescribed tolerance levels. A Viking tape recorder (Model 87) and playback preamplifier (RP83) supplied the taped spondee words to the speech unit of the audiometer. Prior to obtaining a spondee threshold, the 1000-Hz calibration tone at the beginning of the tape was used to peak the VU meter to zero, thus insuring the proper intensity of the spondee words. PROCEDURE
Pure-tone thresholds were determined for all subjects using the method recommended by Carhart and Jerger (1959). Following pure-tone testing, one ear of the subject was designated the test ear. If both ears of a subject met the criteria, the test ear was determined by a prearranged random order. If only one ear met the criteria, that ear was used. T h e right earphone was arbitrarily chosen for the test earphone. T h e left earphone was placed over the nontest ear of the subject and was disconnected from the audiometer. Subjects were read the following instructions in a face-to-face manner: I want to familiarize you with a list of two-syllable words, which will a p p e a r in the next task. Please repeat the words to me.
T h e experimenter than read the 18 words of either List 1 or List 2 to the subject. T h e list chosen for familiarization was counterbalanced among subjects. T h e spondee words were read in alphabetical order and were repeated by the subject. Next, the subject was told: N o w I will present these words to you at very soft listening levels. It is your j o b repeat the words you hear. Since the words are going to be very soft and difficult to hear, it is i m p o r t a n t that you try to guess. T h e words will be the same words which you have just repeated. to
A familarized spondee threshold was then obtained in a conventional way (Chaiklin, Dixon, and Font, 1967), with the exception that the initial ascent was in 10-dB steps. W h e n the first correct response was obtained, testing was initiated at a level 20 dB below the first response. A check sheet similar to that described by Chaiklin and Ventry (1964) allowed the experimenter to record the hearing level of the spondee presentation, the number of correct responses at that level, and the number of errors (no responses, incorrect responses) at that level. T h e lowest hearing level at which the subject correctly identified three spondee words from a m a x i m u m of six spondee presentations was designated the subject's familiarized spondee threshold. This hearing level was used for all further testing. Once a subject's familiarized spondee threshold was obtained, all the words that had been presented to the subject prior to testing in a face-to-face manner were re-presented through the earphones via the tape at the familiarized spondee threshold level. T h a t is, the subject was required to respond to all the 18 familiarized spondee words at the familiarized spondee threshold. T h e check
Downloaded From: https://jshd.pubs.asha.org/ by a University of Texas, Austin User on 03/27/2018 Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
CONN, DANCER, VENTRY: SPONDEE LIST
391
sheet allowed the experimenter to record the subject's responses (correct, none, incorrect) to all of the 18 familiarized words. Following the subject's responses to the familiarized words, the experimenter entered the IAC booth and read the following instructions to the subject: N o w you will hear some other two-syllable words which you are unfamiliar with. T h e s e words will also be very soft. T r y your best to repeat exactly what you hear.
The remaining 18 words of either List 1 or List 2 (with which the subject was unfamiliar) were then presented at the familiarized spondee threshold level. The check sheet allowed the experimenter to record the subject's responses (correct, none, incorrect) to each of the 18 unfamiliarized spondee words. For each subject, therefore, the following data were obtained: (1) a familiarized spondee threshold based on 18 words with which the subject received prior knowledge; (2) the responses (correct, none, incorrect) of the subject to all of the 18 familiarized spondees at the familiarized spondee threshold level; and (3) the responses (correct, none, incorrect) of the subject to the remaining 18 unfamiliarized spondees at the familiarized spondee threshold level. RESU LTS
Table 1 presents the total raw scores of the three types of responses to both unfamiliarized and familiarized spondees at the criterion level (familiarized spondee threshold level), summed over subjects, ears, and lists. All the withincolumn differences are statistically significant (Wilcoxon matched-pairs signedranks test [Siegel, 1956]) and indicate there are significantly more correct reTABLE 1. T o t a l raw scores of responses to familiarized and unfamiliarized spondee words at criterion level.
Condition Familiarized U n familiarized W i t h i n - c o l u m n differences
Correct Response 591 415 176*
No Response 209 279 70 t
In correct Response 64 170 106+
*T of 551; z of 5.52. "~T of 524; z of 5.4. ~T of 351.5; z of 3.6.
sponses and significantly fewer error responses to the familiarized spondees. The total number of responses for each task (familiarized spondees and unfamiliarized spondees) is 864 (48 subjects, each presented 18 familiarized spondees and 18 unfamiliarized spondees). In mean percentages, correct responses to familiarized spondees are the most likely (68%) and occur more often than no responses and incorrect responses combined (52%). Incorrect responses (guesses) are least likely (7.5%). Using an ascending test method, familiarized spondees
Downloaded From: https://jshd.pubs.asha.org/ by a University of Texas, Austin User on 03/27/2018 Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
392
JOURNAL OF SPEECH A N D HEARING DISORDERS
--
XL, 3
at the criterion level tend to be either correctly identified or not identified at all (no response). In comparison, correct responses to unfamiliar spondees at the criterion level are less likely (48%) and occur less often than no responses and incorrect responses combined (52%). Tables 2 and 3 detail the n u m b e r and types of responses to each spondee word under the familiarized and the unfamiliarized conditions. For example, as a familiarized word, hardware was correctly identified 24 times (Table 2); there were no errors to the word. As an unfamiliarized word, hardware was correctly identified 17 times (Table 3); there were seven error responses to the word (four no responses, three incorrect responses). In both tables, the words
TABLE 9. The n u m b e r and types of responses to familiarized spondees at the criterion level. T h e spondees are arranged in order from the greatest number of correct responses to the least.
Spondee Word
Correct Response
No Response
Incorrect Response
hardware baseball woodwork airplane iceberg workshop cowboy hotdog whitewash drawbridge eardrum inkwell oatmeal playground sunset armchair northwest railroad duckpond grandson sidewalk stairway mush room mousetrap pancake birthday daybreak greyhound padlock toothbrush doormat farewell schoolboy headlight horseshoe hothouse
24 23 22 21 21 21 20 19 19 18 18 18 18 18 18 17 17 17 16 16 16 16 15 15 15 14 14 14 14 14 13 12 12 11 9 6
0 1 2 2 2 2 0 3 5 5 6 4
0 0 0 1 1 1 4 2 0 1 0 2
5
1
4 6 6 5 7 7 6 4 3 8 9 8 8 8 9 8 8 6 6 10 10 9 17
2 0 1 2 0 1 2 4 5 1 0 1 2 2 1 2 2 5 6 2 3 6 1
Downloaded From: https://jshd.pubs.asha.org/ by a University of Texas, Austin User on 03/27/2018 Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
CONN, DANCER, VENTRY: SPONDEE LIST
393
TABI,E 3. The number and types of responses to unfamiliarized spondees at the criterion level. The spondees are arranged in order from the greatest number of correct responses to the least.
Spondee W o r d baseball airplane iceberg sunset hardware armchair playground stairway woodwork workshop birthday eardrum doormat northwest railroad grandson sidewalk farewell mousetrap mushroom whitewash horseshoe hotdog oatmeal pancake cowboy daybreak toothbrush drawbridge greyhound inkwell schoolboy padlock d uckpond headlight hothouse
Correct No R e s p o n s e Response 22 19 18 18 17 16 16 16 16 16 14 14 13 13 13 12 12 11 11 11 11 10 10 10 10 9 8 8 7 7 7 7 6 3 3 1
1 4 5 5 4 6 4 4 6 4 6 4 4 9 9 10 8 4 10 8 7 9 10 9 10 5 14 10 11 10 7 10 9 18 10 15
Incorrect Response 1 1 1 I 3 2 4 4 2 4 4 6 7 2 2 2 4 9 3 5 6 5 4 5 4 10 2 6 6 7 10 7 9 3 11 8
are r a n k e d a c c o r d i n g to t h e n u n l b e r of c o r r e c t responses, w i t h t h e h i g h e s t r a n k a c c o r d e d t h a t w o r d w i t h t h e g-reatest n u m b e r of c o r r e c t responses. Criteria for list selection. T h e p r i m a r y p u r p o s e of this s t u d y was to select a s u b l i s t of s p o n d e e w o r d s t h a t p r o d u c e s p o n d e e t h r e s h o l d s w i t h o u t f a m i l i a r i z a t i o n e q u i v a l e n t to f a m i l i a r i z e d s p o n d e e t h r e s h o l d s . T h o s e w o r d s m o s t l i k e l y to fulfill this p u r p o s e are (1) w o r d s w i t h h i g h c o r r e c t r e s p o n s e rates a n d (2) w o r d s w h o s e c o r r e c t r e s p o n s e rates are least affected by f a m i l i a r i z a t i o n . T a b l e 4 is a c o m p a r i s o n of t h e n u m b e r of c o r r e c t r e s p o n s e s to u n f a m i l i a r i z e d a n d f a m i l i a r i z e d s p o n d e e words. Sunset, for e x a m p l e , was c o r r e c t l y i d e n t i f i e d 18 t i m e s as a n u n f a m i l i a r i z e d w o r d a n d 18 t i m e s as a f a m i l i a r i z e d w o r d . T h e dif-
Downloaded From: https://jshd.pubs.asha.org/ by a University of Texas, Austin User on 03/27/2018 Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
394
JOURNAL OF SPEECH A N D HEARING DISORDERS
--
XL, 3
ference between the two conditions is zero, which is indicated in the difference column (Column 3). In contrast, duckpond was correctly identified three times as an unfamiliarized word and 16 times as a familiarized word. T h e difference between the two conditions is 13, which is indicated in the difference column. T o be selected for inclusion in the sublist, a word had to be at or above the median correct response of 11 for unfamiliarized words (Table 4, Column 1) and below the mean difference of 4.5 (Table 4, Column 3) for the familiarized and unfamiliarized conditions. Those 17 words in Table 4 marked with an asterisk fulfill both criteria and thus qualify for a list that may be potentially TABLE 4. Comparison of the n u m b e r of correct responses to unfamiliarized and familiarized spondee words.
Spondee W o r d *baseball *airplane
*iceberg *sunset hardware *armchair *playground *stairway woodwork workshop *birthday *eardrum *doormat *northwest *railroad *grandson *sidewalk *farewell *mousetrap *mushroom whitewash horseshoe hotdog oatmeal pancake cowboy daybreak toothbrush drawbridge greyhound inkwell schoolboy padlock duckpond headlight hothouse
Correct Responses Untamiliarized Familiarized 22 19 18 18 17 16 16 16 16 16 14 14 13 13 13 12 12 11 11 11 11 10 10 10 10 9 8 8 7 7 7 7 6 3 3 1
23 21 21 18 24 17 18 16 22 21 14 18 13 17 17 16 16 12 15 15 19 9 19 18 15 20 14 14 18 14 18 12 14 16 11 6
Difference 1 2 3 0 7 l 2 0 6 5 0 4 0 4 4 4 4 1 4 4 8 1 9 8 5 11 6 6 11 7 11 5 8 13 8 5
*Spondees with 11 or more unfamiliarized correct responses a n d with difference values less than 4~5. These words qualify for the list for obtaining spondee thresholds without familiarization.
Downloaded From: https://jshd.pubs.asha.org/ by a University of Texas, Austin User on 03/27/2018 Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
CONN, DANCER, VENTRY: SPONDEE LIST
395
used in determining spondee thresholds without familiarization. Curry and Cox (1966) selected 27 words that fell within a 4-dB range and constituted a more homogenous list with respect to intelligibility. Fifteen of the 17 selected spondees in the present study fall within the recommended range of Curry and Cox. By eliminating two words (baseball and grandson), the 15 remaining words meet both the criteria of the present study and the criterion of Curry and Cox. Validation Study. T h e 15 spondee words chosen in this study were hypothesized to produce spondee thresholds, without familiarization, equivalent to familiarized spondee thresholds using the entire 36 words. This assertion was directly tested in 20 additional subjects with normal hearing. For each subject, two spondee thresholds were obtained, the first using the 15 selected words with no familiarization and the second using all 36 words with familiarization. Results of this validation study showed that all 20 intrasubject comparisons of the familiarized spondees thresholds (using 36 words) and the unfamiliarized spondee thresholds (using 15 words) were within plus-or-minus 5 dB. Fourteen of the comparisons were the same; five of the comparisons were 5 dB better (lower) with familiarization; one of the comparisons was 5 dB better without familiarization. T h e mean difference between the two spondee thresholds was 1 dB, which has no clinical significance. Thus, in normals, the 15 selected words produce unfamiliarized spondee thresholds equivalent to familiarized spondee thresholds. These 15 words have been used in obtaining unfamiliarized spondee thresholds in a clinical testing situation for over a year. These unfamiliarized thresholds appear to correlate reliably with the two- or three-frequency pure-tone averages in the vast majority of hearing-impaired ears. We are presently making a direct comparison of the 15 selected words to the entire 36 words in hearing-impaired ears. Final recommendations on the use of the 15 words clinically to establish unfamiliarized spondee thresholds rest upon the results of such a comparison. ACKNOWLEDGMENT Requests for reprints should be directed to Marjorie Conn, Department of Communication Arts and Sciences, Marymount Manhattan College, New York, N.Y. 11021.
REFERENCES CARHART,R., and JERCER,J., Preferred method for clinical determination of pure-tone thresholds. J. Speech Hearing Dis., 24, 330-345 (1959). CHAIKUN, J., DixoN, R., and FONT, J., Spondee thresholds measured in ascending 5-dB steps. ]. Speech Hearing Res., I0, 141-145 (1967). CHAIKUN, J., and VENTRY, I., Spondee threshold measurement: A comparison of 2- and 5-dB methods. J. Speech Hearing Dis., 29, 47-59 (1964). CvRRY, E., and Cox, B., The relative intelligibility of spondees. ]. aud. Res., 6, 419-424 (1966). HImH, I., DAVlS, H., SILVERMAN,S., P0EYNOLDS,E., ELVZR[,E., and BENSON, R., Development of materials for speech audiometry. J. Speech Hearing Dis., 17, 321-337 (1952). J~RG~R, J., CARHART,R., TILLMAN, T., and PL-rr.SSON,J., Some relations between normal hearing for pure tones and for speech. ]. Speech Hearing Res., 2, 126-140 (1959).
Downloaded From: https://jshd.pubs.asha.org/ by a University of Texas, Austin User on 03/27/2018 Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
396
JOURNAL OF SPEECH A N D HEARING DISORDERS
--
XL, 3
MARTIN, 17, and PENNINGTON,C., Current trends in audiometric practices. Asha, 13, 671-677 (1971). NEWBY, H., Audiology. (3rd ed.) New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts (1972). SIEGEL, S., Nonparametric Statistics ]or the Behavioral Sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill (1956). TmLMAN, T., and JERGER,J., Some factors affecting the spondee threshold in normal hearing subjects. J. Speech Hearing Res., 2, 141-146 (1959). Received October 8, 1974. Accepted January 30, 1975.
Downloaded From: https://jshd.pubs.asha.org/ by a University of Texas, Austin User on 03/27/2018 Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
SPEECH
Marjorie Conn Marymount Manhattan College, New York, New York
Jess Dancer and Ira M. Ventry Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, New York
The purpose of this investigation was to select a list of spondees from the CID W-1 spondee word list that eliminates the need for familiarization but produces spondee thresholds equivalent to those obtained with familiarization. Forty-eight subjects with normal hearing responded to familiarized and unfamiliarized spondee words at their familiarized spondee threshold levels. Spondee words that were correctly identified most often without prior familiarization or whose correct response rates were least altered by familiarization were selected for the final list. Seventeen words were selected from the criteria of the present study; two of these words were excluded from the final list since they did not fall within the recommended 4-dB range. The 15 remaining spondee words without familiarization produced spondee thresholds equivalent to the entire CID W-1 list with familiarization in a direct comparison of the two lists in 20 subjects with normal hearing.
T h e 36 spondee words in the C I D a u d i t o r y tests W-1 a n d W-2 were selected f r o m a larger list of spondees (Psycho-Acoustic Laboratories, List 9) a n d were recorded i n an a t t e m p t to produce a s t a n d a r d list of spondee words homogenous w i t h respect to i n t e l l i g i b i l i t y ( H i r s h et al., 1952). A l t h o u g h these words are the most f r e q u e n t l y used test s t i m u l i for the clinical m e a s u r e m e n t of speech thresholds ( M a r t i n a n d P e n n i n g t o n , 1971), their h o m o g e n e i t y is still subject to question. C u r r y a n d Cox (1966) used subjects f a m i l i a r i z e d w i t h the W-1 words a n d f o u n d a m e a n 8.1-dB range between the most a n d least i n t e l l i g i b l e words. C u r r y a n d Cox consider this r a n g e a possible d e t r i m e n t to the r e l i a b i l i t y of spondee thresholds a n d r e c o m m e n d that the C I D lists be s h o r t e n e d to include 27 words f a l l i n g w i t h i n a more restricted 4-dB range. Despite the lack o[ item homogeneity, the step of f a m i l i a r i z a t i o n w i t h the spondee words prior to testing produces spondee thresholds w i t h h i g h testretest r e l i a b i l i t y a n d h i g h correlations to the two- a n d three-frequency puretone average ( C h a i k l i n a n d Ventry, 1964; C h a i k l i n , Dixon, a n d Font, 1967). J e r g e r et al. (1959) a n d T i l l m a n a n d J e r g e r (1959) investigated the use o[ 388
Downloaded From: https://jshd.pubs.asha.org/ by a University of Texas, Austin User on 03/27/2018 Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
CONN, DANCER, VENTRY. SPONDEE LIST
389
familiarized and unfamiliarized spondees for determining spondee thresholds. They found familiarized spondee thresholds both initially lower in their mean sound pressure level (SPL) values and less variable upon repeated testing. Investigators have shown, therefore, that familiarization with the test spondees appears to be an important step in the determination of spondee thresholds. In practice, familiarization is neither routinely stressed nor routinely conducted. Newby (1972) states, without further comment, that "Many audiologists have the patient read over a list of words that appear in the spondee test so that he is familiar with the vocabulary" (p. 130). Questionnaire data of Martin and Pennington (1971) indicate that approximately 50% of a random sampling of clinically certified audiologists (N of 290) usually do not familiarize patients with the spondees prior to determining spondee thresholds. It is assumed that audiologists who use unfamiliarized spondee words to determine a spondee threshold do so to save time. A timesaving rationale is insufficient reason for dismissing the significant differences pointed out in the literature between familiarized and unfamiliarized spondee thresholds. Since many clinicians do not familiarize patients with the spondee words, it would appear worthwhile to explore the possibility of selecting spondee words that eliminate the need for familiarization but produce spondee thresholds equivalent to those obtained with familiarization. T h e primary purpose of this study was to generate a list of spondee words that would eliminate the need for prior familiarization in determining spondee thresholds. METHOD
Subjects. Forty-eight adult subjects (26 female, 22 male; age range 16-74; mean age 41) served in the present study. All subjects were either patients seeing an otorhinolaryngologist or were accompanying such patients. Subjects were selected on the basis of the following criteria: (I) no previous hearing tests, either pure-tone or speech, (2) a 20-dB HL spondee threshold or better in the test ear, (3) no pure-tone threshold loss greater than 30 dB in the octave ranges between 250 Hz-4000 Hz, (4) a negative otoscopic examination in the test ear, (5) no history of severe noise exposure, and (6) no present complaints of ear distress (pain, tinnitus, pressure, and so forth). To preclude abruptly sloping audiograms, no contiguous-octave differences of greater than 15 dB were accepted. All subjects spoke English as their primary language. Materials. A taped recording of List E, along with the 1000 Hz calibration tone, was produced from the Hirsh CID W-1 master disc. T h e 36 spondee words of List E were arbitrarily divided into two lists of 18 words each: List 1 from the first 18 words of list E, List 2 from the remaining 18 words. Apparatus. T h e spondee words were delivered through the speech unit of a Beltone audiometer (Model 12D) to the subjects who were fitted with earphones (TDH-39) in cushions (MX/41). All testing was done in an IAG booth. Pure-tone stimuli were calibrated to ISO, 1964 standards, and a 19 dB SPL zero reference level was used for speech. T h e calibration was checked
Downloaded From: https://jshd.pubs.asha.org/ by a University of Texas, Austin User on 03/27/2018 Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
390
JOURNAL OF SPEECH AND HEARING DISORDERS
--
XL, 3
weekly with a Rudmose (RA 110) earphone coupler and did not vary from prescribed tolerance levels. A Viking tape recorder (Model 87) and playback preamplifier (RP83) supplied the taped spondee words to the speech unit of the audiometer. Prior to obtaining a spondee threshold, the 1000-Hz calibration tone at the beginning of the tape was used to peak the VU meter to zero, thus insuring the proper intensity of the spondee words. PROCEDURE
Pure-tone thresholds were determined for all subjects using the method recommended by Carhart and Jerger (1959). Following pure-tone testing, one ear of the subject was designated the test ear. If both ears of a subject met the criteria, the test ear was determined by a prearranged random order. If only one ear met the criteria, that ear was used. T h e right earphone was arbitrarily chosen for the test earphone. T h e left earphone was placed over the nontest ear of the subject and was disconnected from the audiometer. Subjects were read the following instructions in a face-to-face manner: I want to familiarize you with a list of two-syllable words, which will a p p e a r in the next task. Please repeat the words to me.
T h e experimenter than read the 18 words of either List 1 or List 2 to the subject. T h e list chosen for familiarization was counterbalanced among subjects. T h e spondee words were read in alphabetical order and were repeated by the subject. Next, the subject was told: N o w I will present these words to you at very soft listening levels. It is your j o b repeat the words you hear. Since the words are going to be very soft and difficult to hear, it is i m p o r t a n t that you try to guess. T h e words will be the same words which you have just repeated. to
A familarized spondee threshold was then obtained in a conventional way (Chaiklin, Dixon, and Font, 1967), with the exception that the initial ascent was in 10-dB steps. W h e n the first correct response was obtained, testing was initiated at a level 20 dB below the first response. A check sheet similar to that described by Chaiklin and Ventry (1964) allowed the experimenter to record the hearing level of the spondee presentation, the number of correct responses at that level, and the number of errors (no responses, incorrect responses) at that level. T h e lowest hearing level at which the subject correctly identified three spondee words from a m a x i m u m of six spondee presentations was designated the subject's familiarized spondee threshold. This hearing level was used for all further testing. Once a subject's familiarized spondee threshold was obtained, all the words that had been presented to the subject prior to testing in a face-to-face manner were re-presented through the earphones via the tape at the familiarized spondee threshold level. T h a t is, the subject was required to respond to all the 18 familiarized spondee words at the familiarized spondee threshold. T h e check
Downloaded From: https://jshd.pubs.asha.org/ by a University of Texas, Austin User on 03/27/2018 Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
CONN, DANCER, VENTRY: SPONDEE LIST
391
sheet allowed the experimenter to record the subject's responses (correct, none, incorrect) to all of the 18 familiarized words. Following the subject's responses to the familiarized words, the experimenter entered the IAC booth and read the following instructions to the subject: N o w you will hear some other two-syllable words which you are unfamiliar with. T h e s e words will also be very soft. T r y your best to repeat exactly what you hear.
The remaining 18 words of either List 1 or List 2 (with which the subject was unfamiliar) were then presented at the familiarized spondee threshold level. The check sheet allowed the experimenter to record the subject's responses (correct, none, incorrect) to each of the 18 unfamiliarized spondee words. For each subject, therefore, the following data were obtained: (1) a familiarized spondee threshold based on 18 words with which the subject received prior knowledge; (2) the responses (correct, none, incorrect) of the subject to all of the 18 familiarized spondees at the familiarized spondee threshold level; and (3) the responses (correct, none, incorrect) of the subject to the remaining 18 unfamiliarized spondees at the familiarized spondee threshold level. RESU LTS
Table 1 presents the total raw scores of the three types of responses to both unfamiliarized and familiarized spondees at the criterion level (familiarized spondee threshold level), summed over subjects, ears, and lists. All the withincolumn differences are statistically significant (Wilcoxon matched-pairs signedranks test [Siegel, 1956]) and indicate there are significantly more correct reTABLE 1. T o t a l raw scores of responses to familiarized and unfamiliarized spondee words at criterion level.
Condition Familiarized U n familiarized W i t h i n - c o l u m n differences
Correct Response 591 415 176*
No Response 209 279 70 t
In correct Response 64 170 106+
*T of 551; z of 5.52. "~T of 524; z of 5.4. ~T of 351.5; z of 3.6.
sponses and significantly fewer error responses to the familiarized spondees. The total number of responses for each task (familiarized spondees and unfamiliarized spondees) is 864 (48 subjects, each presented 18 familiarized spondees and 18 unfamiliarized spondees). In mean percentages, correct responses to familiarized spondees are the most likely (68%) and occur more often than no responses and incorrect responses combined (52%). Incorrect responses (guesses) are least likely (7.5%). Using an ascending test method, familiarized spondees
Downloaded From: https://jshd.pubs.asha.org/ by a University of Texas, Austin User on 03/27/2018 Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
392
JOURNAL OF SPEECH A N D HEARING DISORDERS
--
XL, 3
at the criterion level tend to be either correctly identified or not identified at all (no response). In comparison, correct responses to unfamiliar spondees at the criterion level are less likely (48%) and occur less often than no responses and incorrect responses combined (52%). Tables 2 and 3 detail the n u m b e r and types of responses to each spondee word under the familiarized and the unfamiliarized conditions. For example, as a familiarized word, hardware was correctly identified 24 times (Table 2); there were no errors to the word. As an unfamiliarized word, hardware was correctly identified 17 times (Table 3); there were seven error responses to the word (four no responses, three incorrect responses). In both tables, the words
TABLE 9. The n u m b e r and types of responses to familiarized spondees at the criterion level. T h e spondees are arranged in order from the greatest number of correct responses to the least.
Spondee Word
Correct Response
No Response
Incorrect Response
hardware baseball woodwork airplane iceberg workshop cowboy hotdog whitewash drawbridge eardrum inkwell oatmeal playground sunset armchair northwest railroad duckpond grandson sidewalk stairway mush room mousetrap pancake birthday daybreak greyhound padlock toothbrush doormat farewell schoolboy headlight horseshoe hothouse
24 23 22 21 21 21 20 19 19 18 18 18 18 18 18 17 17 17 16 16 16 16 15 15 15 14 14 14 14 14 13 12 12 11 9 6
0 1 2 2 2 2 0 3 5 5 6 4
0 0 0 1 1 1 4 2 0 1 0 2
5
1
4 6 6 5 7 7 6 4 3 8 9 8 8 8 9 8 8 6 6 10 10 9 17
2 0 1 2 0 1 2 4 5 1 0 1 2 2 1 2 2 5 6 2 3 6 1
Downloaded From: https://jshd.pubs.asha.org/ by a University of Texas, Austin User on 03/27/2018 Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
CONN, DANCER, VENTRY: SPONDEE LIST
393
TABI,E 3. The number and types of responses to unfamiliarized spondees at the criterion level. The spondees are arranged in order from the greatest number of correct responses to the least.
Spondee W o r d baseball airplane iceberg sunset hardware armchair playground stairway woodwork workshop birthday eardrum doormat northwest railroad grandson sidewalk farewell mousetrap mushroom whitewash horseshoe hotdog oatmeal pancake cowboy daybreak toothbrush drawbridge greyhound inkwell schoolboy padlock d uckpond headlight hothouse
Correct No R e s p o n s e Response 22 19 18 18 17 16 16 16 16 16 14 14 13 13 13 12 12 11 11 11 11 10 10 10 10 9 8 8 7 7 7 7 6 3 3 1
1 4 5 5 4 6 4 4 6 4 6 4 4 9 9 10 8 4 10 8 7 9 10 9 10 5 14 10 11 10 7 10 9 18 10 15
Incorrect Response 1 1 1 I 3 2 4 4 2 4 4 6 7 2 2 2 4 9 3 5 6 5 4 5 4 10 2 6 6 7 10 7 9 3 11 8
are r a n k e d a c c o r d i n g to t h e n u n l b e r of c o r r e c t responses, w i t h t h e h i g h e s t r a n k a c c o r d e d t h a t w o r d w i t h t h e g-reatest n u m b e r of c o r r e c t responses. Criteria for list selection. T h e p r i m a r y p u r p o s e of this s t u d y was to select a s u b l i s t of s p o n d e e w o r d s t h a t p r o d u c e s p o n d e e t h r e s h o l d s w i t h o u t f a m i l i a r i z a t i o n e q u i v a l e n t to f a m i l i a r i z e d s p o n d e e t h r e s h o l d s . T h o s e w o r d s m o s t l i k e l y to fulfill this p u r p o s e are (1) w o r d s w i t h h i g h c o r r e c t r e s p o n s e rates a n d (2) w o r d s w h o s e c o r r e c t r e s p o n s e rates are least affected by f a m i l i a r i z a t i o n . T a b l e 4 is a c o m p a r i s o n of t h e n u m b e r of c o r r e c t r e s p o n s e s to u n f a m i l i a r i z e d a n d f a m i l i a r i z e d s p o n d e e words. Sunset, for e x a m p l e , was c o r r e c t l y i d e n t i f i e d 18 t i m e s as a n u n f a m i l i a r i z e d w o r d a n d 18 t i m e s as a f a m i l i a r i z e d w o r d . T h e dif-
Downloaded From: https://jshd.pubs.asha.org/ by a University of Texas, Austin User on 03/27/2018 Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
394
JOURNAL OF SPEECH A N D HEARING DISORDERS
--
XL, 3
ference between the two conditions is zero, which is indicated in the difference column (Column 3). In contrast, duckpond was correctly identified three times as an unfamiliarized word and 16 times as a familiarized word. T h e difference between the two conditions is 13, which is indicated in the difference column. T o be selected for inclusion in the sublist, a word had to be at or above the median correct response of 11 for unfamiliarized words (Table 4, Column 1) and below the mean difference of 4.5 (Table 4, Column 3) for the familiarized and unfamiliarized conditions. Those 17 words in Table 4 marked with an asterisk fulfill both criteria and thus qualify for a list that may be potentially TABLE 4. Comparison of the n u m b e r of correct responses to unfamiliarized and familiarized spondee words.
Spondee W o r d *baseball *airplane
*iceberg *sunset hardware *armchair *playground *stairway woodwork workshop *birthday *eardrum *doormat *northwest *railroad *grandson *sidewalk *farewell *mousetrap *mushroom whitewash horseshoe hotdog oatmeal pancake cowboy daybreak toothbrush drawbridge greyhound inkwell schoolboy padlock duckpond headlight hothouse
Correct Responses Untamiliarized Familiarized 22 19 18 18 17 16 16 16 16 16 14 14 13 13 13 12 12 11 11 11 11 10 10 10 10 9 8 8 7 7 7 7 6 3 3 1
23 21 21 18 24 17 18 16 22 21 14 18 13 17 17 16 16 12 15 15 19 9 19 18 15 20 14 14 18 14 18 12 14 16 11 6
Difference 1 2 3 0 7 l 2 0 6 5 0 4 0 4 4 4 4 1 4 4 8 1 9 8 5 11 6 6 11 7 11 5 8 13 8 5
*Spondees with 11 or more unfamiliarized correct responses a n d with difference values less than 4~5. These words qualify for the list for obtaining spondee thresholds without familiarization.
Downloaded From: https://jshd.pubs.asha.org/ by a University of Texas, Austin User on 03/27/2018 Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
CONN, DANCER, VENTRY: SPONDEE LIST
395
used in determining spondee thresholds without familiarization. Curry and Cox (1966) selected 27 words that fell within a 4-dB range and constituted a more homogenous list with respect to intelligibility. Fifteen of the 17 selected spondees in the present study fall within the recommended range of Curry and Cox. By eliminating two words (baseball and grandson), the 15 remaining words meet both the criteria of the present study and the criterion of Curry and Cox. Validation Study. T h e 15 spondee words chosen in this study were hypothesized to produce spondee thresholds, without familiarization, equivalent to familiarized spondee thresholds using the entire 36 words. This assertion was directly tested in 20 additional subjects with normal hearing. For each subject, two spondee thresholds were obtained, the first using the 15 selected words with no familiarization and the second using all 36 words with familiarization. Results of this validation study showed that all 20 intrasubject comparisons of the familiarized spondees thresholds (using 36 words) and the unfamiliarized spondee thresholds (using 15 words) were within plus-or-minus 5 dB. Fourteen of the comparisons were the same; five of the comparisons were 5 dB better (lower) with familiarization; one of the comparisons was 5 dB better without familiarization. T h e mean difference between the two spondee thresholds was 1 dB, which has no clinical significance. Thus, in normals, the 15 selected words produce unfamiliarized spondee thresholds equivalent to familiarized spondee thresholds. These 15 words have been used in obtaining unfamiliarized spondee thresholds in a clinical testing situation for over a year. These unfamiliarized thresholds appear to correlate reliably with the two- or three-frequency pure-tone averages in the vast majority of hearing-impaired ears. We are presently making a direct comparison of the 15 selected words to the entire 36 words in hearing-impaired ears. Final recommendations on the use of the 15 words clinically to establish unfamiliarized spondee thresholds rest upon the results of such a comparison. ACKNOWLEDGMENT Requests for reprints should be directed to Marjorie Conn, Department of Communication Arts and Sciences, Marymount Manhattan College, New York, N.Y. 11021.
REFERENCES CARHART,R., and JERCER,J., Preferred method for clinical determination of pure-tone thresholds. J. Speech Hearing Dis., 24, 330-345 (1959). CHAIKUN, J., DixoN, R., and FONT, J., Spondee thresholds measured in ascending 5-dB steps. ]. Speech Hearing Res., I0, 141-145 (1967). CHAIKUN, J., and VENTRY, I., Spondee threshold measurement: A comparison of 2- and 5-dB methods. J. Speech Hearing Dis., 29, 47-59 (1964). CvRRY, E., and Cox, B., The relative intelligibility of spondees. ]. aud. Res., 6, 419-424 (1966). HImH, I., DAVlS, H., SILVERMAN,S., P0EYNOLDS,E., ELVZR[,E., and BENSON, R., Development of materials for speech audiometry. J. Speech Hearing Dis., 17, 321-337 (1952). J~RG~R, J., CARHART,R., TILLMAN, T., and PL-rr.SSON,J., Some relations between normal hearing for pure tones and for speech. ]. Speech Hearing Res., 2, 126-140 (1959).
Downloaded From: https://jshd.pubs.asha.org/ by a University of Texas, Austin User on 03/27/2018 Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
396
JOURNAL OF SPEECH A N D HEARING DISORDERS
--
XL, 3
MARTIN, 17, and PENNINGTON,C., Current trends in audiometric practices. Asha, 13, 671-677 (1971). NEWBY, H., Audiology. (3rd ed.) New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts (1972). SIEGEL, S., Nonparametric Statistics ]or the Behavioral Sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill (1956). TmLMAN, T., and JERGER,J., Some factors affecting the spondee threshold in normal hearing subjects. J. Speech Hearing Res., 2, 141-146 (1959). Received October 8, 1974. Accepted January 30, 1975.
Downloaded From: https://jshd.pubs.asha.org/ by a University of Texas, Austin User on 03/27/2018 Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
