Psychometrically equivalent Russian speech audiometry materials by male and female talkers

References

• Aleksandrovsky I.V., McCullough J.K., Wilson R.H. Development of suprathreshold word recognition test for Russian-speaking patients. J Am Acad Audiol 1998; 9: 417–25
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• American National Standards Institute 1999. Maximum Permissible Ambient Noise Levels for Audiometric Test Rooms. ANSI S3.1-1999. New York: ANSI.
   Google Scholar
• American National Standards Institute 2004. Specification for Audiometers. ANSI S3.6-2004. New York: ANSI.
   Google Scholar
• ASHA. 1988. Guidelines for determining threshold level for speech. ASHA, 30, 85–9.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• ASHA. 1990. Guidelines for screening for hearing impairments and middle-ear disorders. ASHA, 32, 17–24.
   Google Scholar
• Beattie R.C., Edgerton B.J., Svihovec D.V. 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 Disord 1977; 42: 60–4
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Beattie R.C., Svihovec D.V., Edgerton B.J. Relative intelligibility of the CID spondees as presented via monitored live voice. J Speech Hear Disord 1975; 40: 84–91
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Brown N.J. 1996. Russian learners' dictionary: 10,000 words in frequency order. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Cambron N.K., Wilson R.H., Shanks J.E. Spondaic word detection and recognition functions for female and male speakers. Ear Hear 1991; 12: 64–70
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christensen L.K. 1995. Performance intensity functions for digitally recorded Spanish speech audiometry. Unpublished master's thesis. Brigham Young University, Provo, UT.
   Google Scholar
• Comstock C.L., Martin F.N. A children's Spanish word discrimination test for non-Spanish-speaking clinicians. Ear Hear 1984; 5: 166–70
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davis L.A., Davidson S.A. Preference for and performance with damped and undamped hearing aids by listeners with sensorineural hearing loss. J Speech Hear Res 1996; 39: 483–93
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Eldert E., Davis H. The articulation function of patients with conductive deafness. Laryngoscope 1951; 41: 891–909
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gelfand S.A. Optimizing the reliability of speech recognition scores. J Speech Lang Hear Res 1998; 41: 1088–1102
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greer L.F. 1997. Performance intensity functions for digitally recorded Italian speech audiometry materials. Unpublished master's thesis. Brigham Young University, Provo, UT.
   Google Scholar
• Grubb P. A phonemic analysis of half-list speech discrimination tests. J Speech Hear Res 1963; 10: 271–75
   Google Scholar
• Harris R.W., Goffi M.V.S., Pedalini M.E.B., Merrill A., Gygi M.A. Psychometrically equivalent Brazilian Portuguese bisyllabic word recognition materials spoken by male and female talkers. Pró-Fono 2001; 13: 249–62
   Google Scholar
• Harris R.W., Kim E., Eggett D.L. Psychometrically equivalent Korean bisyllabic words spoken by male and female talkers. Korean J Commun Disord 2003a; 8: 217–243
   Google Scholar
• Harris R.W., Kim E., Eggett D.L. Psychometrically equivalent Korean monosyllabic speech discrimination materials spoken by male and female talkers. Korean J Commun Disord 2003b; 8: 244–70
   Google Scholar
• Harris R.W., Nielson W.S., McPherson D.L., Skarzynski H. Psychometrically equivalent Polish bisyllabic words spoken by male and female talkers. Audiofonologia 2004a; 25: 1–15
   Google Scholar
• Harris R.W., Nielson W.S., McPherson D.L., Skarzynski H. Psychometrically equivalent Polish monosyllabic word recognition materials spoken by male and female talkers. Audiofonologia 2004b; 25: 16–31
   Google Scholar
• Harris R.W. & Pola M.G. 2005. Brigham Young University Russian Speech Audiometry Materials, [Compact Disc]. ProvoUtah: Brigham Young University.
   Google Scholar
• Heckendorf A.L., Wiley T.L., Wilson R.H. Performance norms for the VA compact disc versions of CID W-22 (Hirsh) and PB-50 (Rush Hughes) word lists. J Am Acad Audiol 1997; 8: 163–72
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hirsh I.J., Davis H., Silverman S.R., Reynolds E.G., Eldert E., et al. Development of materials for speech audiometry. J Speech Hear Disord 1952; 17: 321–37
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hood J.D., Poole J.P. Influence of the speaker and other factors affecting speech intelligibility. Audiology 1980; 19: 434–55
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hudgins C.V., Hawkins J.E., Karlin J.E., Stevens S.S. The development of recorded auditory tests for measuring hearing loss for speech. Laryngoscope 1947; 57: 57–89
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jerger J., Speaks C., Trammell J.L. A new approach to speech audiometry. J Speech Hear Disord 1968; 33: 318–28
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kamm C.A., Carterette E.C., Morgan D.E., Dirks D.D. Use of digitized speech materials in audiological research. J Speech Hear Res 1980; 23: 709–21
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Katzner K. 1995. The Languages of the World. London & New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Lehiste I., Peterson G. Linguistic considerations and intelligibility. J Acoust Soc Am 1959; 31: 280–86
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luce P.A. A computational analysis of uniqueness points in auditory word recognition. Percept Psychophys 1986; 39: 155–58
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mackersie C.L., Boothroyd A., Minniear D. Evaluation of the computer-assisted speech perception assessment test (CASPA). J Am Acad Audiol 2001; 12: 390–96
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Martin F.N., Champlin C.A., Perez D.D. The question of phonetic balance in word recognition testing. J Am Acad Audiol 2000; 11: 489–93
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Nissen S.L., Harris R.W., Jennings L., Eggett D.L., Buck H. Psychometrically equivalent trisyllabic words for speech reception threshold testing in Mandarin. Int J Audiol 2005; 44: 391–99
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Penrod J.P. A comparison of half- vs full-list speech discrimination scores in a hearing-impaired geriatric population. J Aud Res 1980; 20: 181–86
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pisoni D.B. Speech perception: Some new directions in research and theory. J Acoust Soc Am 1985; 78: 381–88
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ramkissoon I. Speech recognition thresholds for multilingual populations. Commun Disord Q 2001; 22: 158–62
   Google Scholar
• Resnick D. Reliability of the twenty-five word phonetically balanced lists. J Aud Res 1962; 2: 5–12
   Google Scholar
• Ridgway J. Compact disks-A revolution in the making. Canadian Library Journal 1986; 43: 23–29
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roup C.M., Wiley T.L., Safady S.H., Stoppenbach D.T. Tympanometric screening norms for adults. Am J Audiol 1998; 7: 55–60
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rupp R.R. & Stockdell K.G. 1980. Speech protocols in audiology. New York: Grune & Stratton.
   Google Scholar
• Siemens 1996. PYCCKNE PEYEBBIE TECTBI, [Compact Disc]. ErlangenGermany: Audiologische Technik GmbH.
   Google Scholar
• Sony. Compact disc player operating instructions. 1991. Japan, Sony Corporation. Ref Type: Pamphlet.
   Google Scholar
• Stelmachowicz P.G., Pittman A.L., Hoover B.M., Lewis D.E. Aided perception of /s/ and /z/ by hearing-impaired children. Ear Hear 2002; 23: 316–24
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Studio Audio & Video Ltd. 2004. SADiE disk editor software. [5.2.2]. [Computer Program].
   Google Scholar
• Summer Institute of Linguistics 2005. Ethnologue: Languages of the World. 15th edn, SIL International.
   Google Scholar
• United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names Working Group on Romanization Systems 2003, Report on the current status of United Nations Romanization systems for geographical names, United Nations, New York, Version 2.2.
   Google Scholar
• Weber G. The World's 10 Most Influential Languages. Language Today 1997; 3: 12–18
   Google Scholar
• Weisleder P., Hodgson W.R. Evaluation of four Spanish word-recognition-ability lists. Ear Hear 1989; 10: 387–92
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilson R.H., Carter A.S. Relation between slopes of word recognition psychometric functions and homogeneity of the stimulus materials. J Am Acad Audiol 2001; 12: 7–14
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wilson R.H., Oyler A.L. Psychometric functions for the CID W-22 and NU Auditory Test No. 6. Materials spoken by the same speaker. Ear Hear 1997; 18: 430–33
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilson R.H., Strouse A. Psychometrically equivalent spondaic words spoken by a female speaker. J Speech Lang Hear Res 1999; 42: 1336–46
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilson W.J., Moodley S. Use of the CID W22 as a South African English speech discrimination test. S Afr J Commun Disord 2000; 47: 57–62
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• World Health Organization. Prevention of deafness and hearing impairment. World Health Organization. 2005. Ref Type: Electronic citation
   Google Scholar
• Young L.L., Dudley B., Gunter M.B. Thresholds and psychometric functions of the individual spondaic words. J Speech Hear Res 1982; 25: 586–93
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Zakrzewski A., Jassem W., Pruszewicz A., Obrebowski A. Speech audiometry for children and subjective probability of Polish words. Audiology 1976; 15: 228–31
   PubMedGoogle Scholar