Download PDF
J Am Acad Audiol 2021; 32(04): 246-253
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1722986
Research Article

Phonemically Balanced Arabic Monosyllabic Word Lists for Speech Audiometry Testing in Jordan

Fadi Jamil Najem
1   Department of Audiology and Speech Pathology, Al-Ahliyya Amman University, Amman, Jordan
,
Basem Marie
1   Department of Audiology and Speech Pathology, Al-Ahliyya Amman University, Amman, Jordan
› Author Affiliations Funding This study was funded by Amman Al-Ahliyya Research Fund (Approval number: 3/6/2015-2016).
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background Many of the Arabic monosyllabic word lists that are currently available in the literature have some limitations and drawbacks. Some of these available lists include word structures that are not consonant-nucleus-consonant (CNC) such as cluster and disyllabic word structures. Other lists have poor phonetic or phonemic distribution balance and do not represent some phoneme appropriately in each list.

Purpose The purpose of the present study is to create and validate eight digitally recorded lists of phonemically balanced CNC words that represent all Arabic phonemes, to be used in the evaluation of word recognition score (WRS) of Jordanian Arabic-speaking adults. These lists should be easily adapted by other Arab countries because of the simplicity of the words, and the balanced inclusion of all the Arabic phonemes.

Research Design The present study is a prospective cross-sectional study.

Study Sample Thirty-one (23 females, 8 males) normal hearing and healthy young adults (18–29 years old) participated in the present study. All participants were native speakers of Jordanian Arabic and had no history of ear disease or surgery.

Lists The authors created all possible combinations of Arabic CNC words, and then created eight phonemically balanced lists with 26 words in each list. Each consonant was presented only once at the beginning of a word and once at the end of a word in each list. The lists were recorded using a Jordanian male voice and the intensity of each word was digitally calibrated.

Data Collection and Analysis The pure tone average (PTA) of 0.5, 1, 2, 4 kHz was calculated for each participant, and the WRS was obtained for each intensity level in the range of –10 to 55 dB SL (ref. PTA) in 5 dB steps.

Results No significant difference between right and left ear WRS was found at any intensity level. The WRSs from both ears were averaged and used in the repeated measure analysis of variance. Performance-intensity functions for all the lists showed some small but statistically significant differences between lists. However, none of these differences were clinically significant (<4%). All the lists showed WRS exceeding 96% at 40 dB SL, and none of the lists showed statistically significant improvement in WRS beyond 40 dB SL.

Conclusion The present study provides eight lists of recorded and calibrated CNC word lists. The obtained PI functions showed that these lists are suitable for Jordanian Arabic speaking adults. These lists can be easily generalized to other Arab countries after conducting the required follow-up research.

Keywords

word recognition score - monosyllabic words - speech audiometry - performance-intensity function - audiological evaluation

Supplementary Material



Publication History

Received: 11 April 2020

Accepted: 07 October 2020

Article published online:
01 June 2021

© 2021. American Academy of Audiology. This article is published by Thieme.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Martin F, Clark J. Speech audiometry. In: Introduction to Audiology. Tenth edition. Boston: Allyn and Bacon; 2009
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Carhart R. Basic principles of speech audiometry. Acta Otolaryngol 1951; 40 (1-2): 62-71
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Cramer KD, Erber NP. A spondee recognition test for young hearing-impaired children. J Speech Hear Disord 1974; 39 (03) 304-311
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Curry ET. A study of the relationship between speech thresholds and audiometric results in perception deafness. J Speech Disord 1949; 14 (02) 104-110
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Davis H. The articulation area and the social adequacy index for hearing. Laryngoscope 1948; 58 (08) 761-778
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Erber NP. Pure-tone thresholds and word-recognition abilities of hearing-impaired children. J Speech Hear Res 1974; 17 (02) 194-202
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Dubno JR, Lee FS, Klein AJ, Matthews LJ, Lam CF. Confidence limits for maximum word-recognition scores. J Speech Hear Res 1995; 38 (02) 490-502
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Boothroyd A. The performance/intensity function: an underused resource. Ear Hear 2008; 29 (04) 479-491
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Gelfand SA. Optimizing the reliability of speech recognition scores. J Speech Lang Hear Res 1998; 41 (05) 1088-1102
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Hall J. Introduction to Audiology Today. NY: Pearson; 2013
    Google Scholar
  • 11 Dirks DD, Kamm C, Bower D, Betsworth A. Use of performance-intensity functions for diagnosis. J Speech Hear Disord 1977; 42 (03) 408-415
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Pepper Doyne M, Steer MD. Studies in speech reception testing. J Speech Disord 1951; 16 (02) 132-139
    Google Scholar
  • 13 Hirsh IJ, Davis H, Silverman SR, Reynolds EG, Eldert E, Benson RW. Development of materials for speech audiometry. J Speech Hear Disord 1952; 17 (03) 321-337
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Canty P. Speech audiometry in acoustic neuroma. J Laryngol Otol 1978; 92 (10) 843-851
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Arlinger SD. How to assess outcome of hearing aid fitting in children. Scand Audiol Suppl 2001; 30 (53) 68-72
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Moberly AC, Bates C, Harris MS, Pisoni DB. The enigma of poor performance by adults with cochlear implants. Otol Neurotol 2016; 37 (10) 1522-1528
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Lehiste I, Peterson G. Linguistic considerations in the study of speech intelligibility. J Acoust Soc Am 1959; 31 (03) 280-286
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Weisleder P, Hodgson WR. Evaluation of four Spanish word-recognition-ability lists. Ear Hear 1989; 10 (06) 387-392
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Sakamoto S, Yoshikawa T, Amano S, Suzuki Y, Kondo T. New 20-word lists for word intelligibility test in Japanese. Interspeech 2006; x: 2158-2161
    Google Scholar
  • 20 Kemaloğlu Y, Kamışlı G, Mengü G. Phonemic analysis of Turkish monosyllabic word lists used for speech discrimination (word recognition) tests. Kulak Burun Bogaz Ihtis Derg 2017; 27 (04) 198-207
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Soliman S. Speech discrimination audiometry using Arabic phonetically balanced words. Ain Shams Med J 1976; 27: 27-30
    Google Scholar
  • 22 Messouak K. Audiometrie vocale en Arabic maghrebin, Les cahiers de la CFA, No. 4. Compagnie Francaise d'Audiologie, Paris. 1956
    Google Scholar
  • 23 Alusi HA, Hinchcliffe R, Ingham B, Knight JJ, North C. Arabic speech audiometry. Audiology 1974; 13 (03) 212-230
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Ashoor AA, Prochazka Jr T. Saudi Arabic speech audiometry. Audiology 1982; 21 (06) 493-508
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Garadat SN, Abdulbaqi KJ, Haj-Tas MA. The development of the University of Jordan word recognition test. Int J Audiol 2017; 56 (06) 424-430
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Alotaibi Y, Meftah A. Review of distinctive phonetic features and the Arabic share in related modern research. Turk J Electr Eng Comput Sci 2013; 21 (05) 1426-1439
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Ashoor AA, Prochazka Jr T. Saudi Arabic speech audiometry for children. Br J Audiol 1985; 19 (03) 229-238
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Statistics UI. 2020 Education and Literacy in Jordan. . Accessed December 23, 2020 at: http://uis.unesco.org/en/country/jo
    Google Scholar
  • 29 Jerger J. Clinical experience with impedance audiometry. Arch Otolaryngol 1970; 92 (04) 311-324
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Jerger J, Jerger S, Mauldin L. Studies in impedance audiometry. I. Normal and sensorineural ears. Arch Otolaryngol 1972; 96 (06) 513-523
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Gorga MP, Neely ST, Ohlrich B, Hoover B, Redner J, Peters J. From laboratory to clinic: a large scale study of distortion product otoacoustic emissions in ears with normal hearing and ears with hearing loss. Ear Hear 1997; 18 (06) 440-455
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Abdulhaq N. Speech Perception Test for Jordanian Arabic Speaking Children. PhD Dissertation. Florida, USA: University of Florida; 2006
    Google Scholar
  • 33 Martin F, Morris L. Current audiological practices in the United States. Hear J 1989; 42: 25-44
    Google Scholar
  • 34 Roeser R, Clark J. Live Voice Speech Recognition Audiometry—Stop the Madness!. Audiology Today 2008; 20 (01) 32-33
    Google Scholar