The development of the University of Jordan word recognition test

References

• Alusi, H., Hinchcliffe, R., Ingham, B., Knight, J. & North, C. 1974. Arabic speech audiometry. Audiology, 13, 212–230.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amayreh, M., Hamdan, J. & Fareh, S. 1999. Consonant frequency in Arabic and English. In: Lewis Mukattash (ed.) Proceedings of the First International Conference on Arabic-English Contrastive and Comparative Studies. University of Jordan, Dirasat, Special Issue, pp. 207–220.
   Google Scholar
• American National Standards Institute.1996. Specifications for audiometers, ANSI S3.6–1996. New York, NY: American National Standards Institute.
   Google Scholar
• American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. 2000. Audiology Surveys. Rockville, MD: American Speech-Language-Hearing Association.
   Google Scholar
• ASHA. 1988. Guidelines for determining threshold level for speech. American Speech- Language Hearing Association, 30, 85–89.
   Google Scholar
• Ashoor, A. & Prochazka, T. 1982. Saudi Arabic speech audiometry. Audiology, 21, 493–508.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Attias, J., Al-Masri, M., Abukader, I., Cohen, G., Merlov, P., et al. 2006. The prevalence of congenital and early-onset hearing loss in Jordanian and Israeli infants. Int J Audiol, 45, 528–536.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beattie, R.C., Edgerton, B.J. & Svihovec, D.V. 1977. A comparison of the audiotec of St. Louis cassette recordings of NU-6 and CID W-22 on a normal-hearing population. J Speech Lang Hear Disord, 42, 60–64.
   Google Scholar
• Boothroyd, A. 2008. The performance/intensity function: An underused resource. Ear Hear, 29, 479–491.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brandy, W. 1966. Reliability of voice tests of speech discrimination. J Speech Hear Res, 9, 461–465.
   Google Scholar
• Brandy, W. 2002. Speech audiometry. In J. Katz (ed.) Handbook of Clinical Audiology: Fifth edition. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, pp. 96–110.
   Google Scholar
• Canty, P. 1978. Speech audiometry in acoustic neuroma. J Laryngol Otol, 92, 843–851.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carhart, R. 1951. Basic principles of speech audiometry. Acta Oto-Laryngologica, 40, 62–71.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christensen, L. 1995. Performance Intensity Functions for Digitally Recorded Spanish Speech Audiometry. Provo: Brigham Young University.
   Google Scholar
• Donaldson, G. & Allen, S. 2003. Effects of presentation level on phoneme and sentence recognition in quiet by cochlear implant listeners. Ear Hear, 24, 392–405.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Egan, J. 1979. Basic aspects of speech audiometry. Ear Nose Throat J, 58, 190–193.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garlick, J. 2008. The effect of regional dialect on the validity and reliability of word recognition scores [dissertation]. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University.
   Google Scholar
• Gelfand, S. 1998. Optimizing the reliability of speech recognition scores. J Speech Lang Hear. Res, 41, 1088–1102.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hamdan, J. & Amayreh, M. 2007. Consonant profile of Arabic-speaking school-age children in Jordan . Folia Phoniatr Logop, 59, 55–64.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harris, R., Nissen, S., Pola, M., McPherson, D., Tavartkiladze, G. & Eggett, D. 2007. Psychometrically equivalent Russian speech audiometry materials by male and female talkers. Int J Audiol, 46, 47–66.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harris, R. & Greer, L. 1997. Italian Speech Audiometry Materials [Compact Disc]. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University.
   Google Scholar
• Harris, R., Nielson, W., McPherson, D. & Skarzynski, H. 2004. Psychometrically equivalent Polish bisyllabic words spoken by male and female talkers. Audiofonologia, 25, 1–15.
   Google Scholar
• Heckendorf, A., Wiley, T. & Wilson, R. 1997. Performance norms for the VA compact disc versions of CID W-22 (Hirsh) and PB-50 (Rush Hughes) word lists. J Am Acad Audiol, 8, 163–172.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hirsh, I., Davis, H., Silverman, S., Reynolds, E., Eldert, E., et al. 1952. Development of materials for speech audiometry. J Speech Hear Disord, 17, 321–337.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Killion, M., Niquette, P., Gudmundsen, G., Revit, L. & Banerjee, S. 2004. Development of a quick speech-in-noise test for measuring signal-to-noise ratio loss in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 116, 2395–2405.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lehiste, I. & Peterson, G. 1959. Linguistic considerations in the study of speech intelligibility. J Acoust Soc Am, 31, 280–286.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacPherson, A. & Akeroyd, M. 2014. Variations in the slope of the psychometric function for speech intelligibility: A systematic survey. Trends Hear, 18, 1–26.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mangum, T. 2005. Performance intensity functions for digitally recorded Japanese speech audiometry materials. Brigham Young University, Provo.
   Google Scholar
• Martin, F., Champlin, C. & Chambers, J. 1998. Seventh survey of audiometric practices in the United States. J Am Acad Audiol, 9, 95–91 04.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Martin, F. & Clark, J. 2009. Speech audiometry. In: Introduction to Audiology: Tenth edition. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, pp. 126–164.
   Google Scholar
• Martin, F. & Morris, L. 1989. Current audiologic practices in the United States. The Hearing Journal, 42, 25–44.
   Google Scholar
• McCreey, R., Ito, R., Spratford, M., Lewis, D., Hoover, B., et al. 2010. Performance-intensity functions for normal-hearing adults and children using computer-aided speech perception assessment. Ear Hear, 31, 95–101.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Messouak, H. 1956. Audiometrie vocale en arabe maghrebin, Les Cahiers de la Compagnie Francaise d’Audiologie, Paris.
   Google Scholar
• Nelson, A. 2004. Performance intensity functions for digitally recorded French speech audiometry [Unpublished master's thesis]. Boulder, CO: University of Colorado.
   Google Scholar
• Nilsson, M., Soli, S. & Sullivan, J. 1994. Development of the hearing in noise test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise. J Acoust Soc Am, 95, 1085–1099.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nissen, S., Harris, R. & Slade, K. 2007. Development of speech reception threshold materials for speakers of Taiwan Mandarin. Int J Audiol, 46, 449–458.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Preece, J. & Fowler, C. 1992. Relationship of pure-tone averages to speech reception threshold for male and female speakers. J Am Acad Audiol, 3, 221–224.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Roeser, R. & Clark, J. 2008. Live voice speech recognition audiometry – Stop the madness. Audiology Today, 20, 32–33.
   Google Scholar
• Sherbecoe, R. & Studebaker, G. 2002. Audibility-index functions for the connected speech test. Ear Hear, 23, 385–398.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stach, B., Davis-Thaxton, M. & Jerger, J. 1995. Improving the efficiency of speech audiometry: Computer-based approach. J Am Acad Audiol, 6, 330–333.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Thibodeau, L. 2007. Speech audiometry. In: R. J. Roeser, M. Valente, & H. Hosford-Dunn (eds.) Audiology diagnosis: second edition). New York: Thieme, pp. 288–313.
   Google Scholar
• Weisleder, P. & Hodgson, W. 1989. Evaluation of four Spanish word-recognition-ability lists. Ear and Hearing, 10, 387–393.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wiley, T., Stoppenbach, D., Feldhake, L., Moss, K. & Thordardottir, E. 1995. Audiologic practices: What is popular versus what is supported by evidence. Am J Audiol, 4, 26–34.
   Google Scholar
• Wilson, R. & Carter, A. 2001. Relation between slopes of word recognition psychometric functions and homogeneity of the stimulus materials‟. JAm Acad Audiol, 12, 7–14.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wilson, R., Coley, K., Haenel, J. & Browning, K. 1976. Northwestern University auditory test no. 6: Normative and comparative intelligibility functions. J Am Audiol Soc, 1, 221–228.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wilson, R. & Oyler, A. 1997. Psychometric functions for the CID W-22 and NU Auditory Test No. 6. Materials spoken by the same speaker. Ear Hear, 18, 430–433.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Young, L., Dudley, B. & Gunter, M. 1982. Thresholds and psychometric functions of the individual spondaic words. JSpeech Hear Res, 25, 586–593.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar