Measuring the Understanding of Sentences by Hearing-impaired Children: Comparison with Connected Discourse Ratings

References

• World Health Organization. International classification of impairments, disabilities and handicaps: a manual of classification relating to the consequences of disease. WHO, Geneva 1980
   Google Scholar
• Boothroyd A. Developments in speech audiometry. Sound 1968; 2: 3–10
   Google Scholar
• Bilger R C. Speech recognition test development. ASHA Reports 1984; 14: 2–15
   Google Scholar
• Giolas T G, Epstein A. Comparative intelligibility of word lists and continuous discourse. J Speech Hear Res 1963; 6: 349–358
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Oneill J J. Recognition of intelligibility test materials in context and isolation. J Speech Hear Disord 1957; 22: 87–90
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kei J, Smyth V. Measuring the ability of hearing impaired school-aged children to understand connected discourse using an intelligibility self-rating procedure. Aust J Audiol 1996; 18: 23–33
   Google Scholar
• Kei J, Smyth V. Measuring the ability of hearing impaired school-aged children to understand connected discourse: a comparison of two methods. Br J Audiol 1997; 31: 283–297
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elliott L L. Performance of children aged 9 to 17 years on a test of speech intelligibility in noise using sentence material with controlled word predictability. J Acoust Soc Am 1979; 66: 651–653
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bench J, Kowal A, Bamford J. The BKB (Bam-ford-Kowal-Bench) sentence lists for partially-hearing children. Br J Audiol 1979; 13: 108–112
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bench J, Bamford J M, Wilson I M, Clifft L. A comparison of the BKB sentence lists for children with other speech audiometry tests. Aust J Audiol 1979; 1: 61–66
   Google Scholar
• Jerger S, Jerger J. Pediatric speech intelligibility test: performance-intensity characteristics. Ear Hear 1982; 3: 325–334
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kalikow D N, Stevens K N, Elliott L L. Development of a test of speech intelligibility in noise using sentence materials with controlled word predictability. J Acoust Soc Am 1977; 61: 1337–1351
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bilger R C, Nuetzel J M, Rabinowitz W M, Rzeczkowski C. Standardization of a test of speech perception in noise. J Speech Hear Res 1984; 27: 32–48
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Davis H, Silverman S R. Hearing and Deafness, 4th Ed. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York 1978
   Google Scholar
• Tschopp K, Züst H. Performance of normally hearing and hearing-impaired listeners using a German version of the SPIN test. Scand Audiol 1994; 23: 241–247
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bench J, Doyle J, Greenwood K M. A standardisation of the BKB/A sentence test for children in comparison with the NAL-C1D sentence test and the CAP-PBM word test. Aust J Audiol 1987; 9: 39–48
   Google Scholar
• Cox R M, Alexander G C, Rivera I M. Comparison of objective and subjective measures of speech intelligibility in elderly hearing-impaired listeners. J Speech Hear Res 1991; 34: 904–915
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kollmeier B, Wesselkamp M. Development and evaluation of a German sentence test for objective and subjective speech intelligibility assessment. J Acoust Soc Am 1997; 102: 2412–2421
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Matthies M L, Carney A E. A modified speech tracking procedure as a communicative performance measure. J Speech Hear Res 1988; 31: 394–404
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Jerger S, Jerger J. Pediatric Speech Intelligibility test. Auditec, St Louis 1984
   Google Scholar
• Plant G, Moore A. The common objects token (COT) test: a sentence test for profoundly hearing impaired children. Aust J Audiol 1992; 14: 76–83
   Google Scholar
• Plant G, Moore A. Two speech discrimination tests for profoundly hearing-impaired children. Aust J Audiol 1992; 14: 28–40
   Google Scholar
• Ludvigsen C. Construction and evaluation of an audio-visual test (the Helen test). 1974; 67–75, Scand Audiol;(Suppl 4)
   Google Scholar
• Ewertsen H W. Auditory and audio-visual speech perception related to hearing disorders. Scand Audiol, 1974; 76–82, (Suppl 4)
   Google Scholar
• Svendsen M. Scores in visual intelligibility tests related to the scores in the Helen tests. Scand Audiol, 1974; 89–96, (Suppl4)
   Google Scholar
• Plant G. COMMTRAM-A communication training program for profoundly deafened adults. National Acoustic Laboratories, Sydney 1984
   Google Scholar
• Giolas T G. Comparative intelligibility scores of sentence lists and continuous discourse. J Auditory Res 1966; 6: 31–38
   Google Scholar
• Kei J, Chan T, Ma M C, et al. Cantonese speech audiometry for children of Hong Kong. Aust J Audiol 1991; 13: 41–45
   Google Scholar
• Byrne D, Dillon H. The National Acoustic Laboratories (NAL) new procedure for selecting the gain and frequency response of a hearing aid. Ear Hear 1986; 7: 257–265
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Byrne D, Parkinson A, Newall P. Hearing aid gain and frequency response requirements for the severely/profoundly hearing impaired. Ear Hear 1990; 11: 40–49
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Byrne D. Effects of frequency response characteristics on speech discrimination and perceived intelligibility and pleasantness of speech for hearing impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 1986; 80: 494–504
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cox R M, McDaniel D M. Intelligibility ratings of continuous discourse: application to hearing aid selection. J Acoust Soc Am 1984; 76: 758–766
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cox R M, McDaniel D M. Development of the speech intelligibility rating (SIR) test for hearing aid comparisons. J Speech Hear Res 1989; 32: 347–352
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Speaks C, Parker B, Harris C, Kuhl P. Intelligibility of connected discourse. J Speech Hear Res 1972; 15: 590–602
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gray T F, Speaks C E. Ability of hearing impaired listeners to understand connected discourse. J Am AudSoc 1978; 3: 159–166
   Google Scholar
• Siegel S, Castellan N J. Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences, 2nd Ed. McGraw-Hill, New York 1988
   Google Scholar
• SPSS. Advanced statistics manual Version 7.5. SPSS, hicago 1997
   Google Scholar
• Markides A. Binaural hearing aids. Academic Press, London 1977
   Google Scholar
• Jensen J H, Johansen P A, Borre S. Unilateral sensorineural hearing loss in children and auditory performance with respect to right/left ear differences. Br J Audiol 1989; 23: 207–213
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kei J, Murdoch B, Smyth V, McPherson B. Predicting the understanding of Cantonese connected discourse. Asia Pac J Speech Lang Hear 1997; 2: 203–226
   Google Scholar
• Saunders G H, Haggard M P. The clinical assessment of “Obscure Auditory Dysfunction” (OAD) 2. Case control analysis of determining factors. Ear Hear 1992; 13: 241–254
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar