Psychometric Characteristics of Spanish Monosyllabic, Bisyllabic, and Trisyllabic Words for Use in Word-Recognition ProtocolsFunding This work was supported by the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities of the National Institutes of Health under Grant R25MD007607. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.
Background English materials for speech audiometry are well established. In Spanish, speech-recognition materials are not standardized with monosyllables, bisyllables, and trisyllables used in word-recognition protocols.
Purpose This study aimed to establish the psychometric characteristics of common Spanish monosyllabic, bisyllabic, and trisyllabic words for potential use in word-recognition procedures.
Research Design Prospective descriptive study.
Study Sample Eighteen adult Puerto Ricans (M = 25.6 years) with normal hearing [M = 7.8-dB hearing level (HL) pure-tone average] were recruited for two experiments.
Data Collection and Analyses A digital recording of 575 Spanish words was created (139 monosyllables, 359 bisyllables, and 77 trisyllables), incorporating materials from a variety of Spanish word-recognition lists. Experiment 1 (n = 6) used 25 randomly selected words from each of the three syllabic categories to estimate the presentation level ranges needed to obtain recognition performances over the 10 to 90% range. In Experiment 2 (n = 12) the 575 words were presented over five 1-hour sessions using presentation levels from 0- to 30-dB HL in 5-dB steps (monosyllables), 0- to 25-dB HL in 5-dB steps (bisyllables), and −3- to 17-dB HL in 4-dB steps (trisyllables). The presentation order of both the words and the presentation levels were randomized for each listener. The functions for each listener and each word were fit with polynomial equations from which the 50% points and slopes at the 50% point were calculated.
Results The mean 50% points and slopes at 50% were 8.9-dB HL, 4.0%/dB (monosyllables), 6.9-dB HL, 5.1%/dB (bisyllables), and 1.4-dB HL, 6.3%/dB (trisyllables). The Kruskal–Wallis test with Mann–Whitney U post-hoc analysis indicated that the mean 50% points and slopes at the 50% points of the individual word functions were significantly different among the syllabic categories. Although significant differences were observed among the syllabic categories, substantial overlap was noted in the individual word functions, indicating that the psychometric characteristics of the words were not dictated exclusively by the syllabic number. Influences associated with word difficulty, word familiarity, singular and plural form words, phonetic stress patterns, and gender word patterns also were evaluated.
Conclusion The main finding was the direct relation between the number of syllables in a word and word-recognition performance. In general, words with more syllables were more easily recognized; there were, however, exceptions. The current data from young adults with normal hearing established the psychometric characteristics of the 575 Spanish words on which the formulation of word lists for both threshold and suprathreshold measures of word-recognition abilities in quiet and in noise and other word-recognition protocols can be based.
Keywordsauditory perception - normal hearing for pure tones - Spanish word recognition - speech perception - word recognition
Parts of this manuscript were presented at the Puerto Rico Academy of Audiology Convention. Río Grande, Puerto Rico (February, 2016), and the American Academy of Audiology Conventions in Phoenix, Arizona (April, 2016) and in Columbus, Ohio (March, 2019).
Received: 02 July 2019
Accepted: 23 December 2019
02 June 2020 (online)
© 2020. Copyright © 2020 by the American Academy of Audiology. All rights reserved.
Thieme Medical Publishers
333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.
- 1 Hudgins CV, Hawkins JE, Karlin JE, Stevens SS. The development of recorded auditory tests for measuring hearing loss for speech. Laryngoscope 1947; 57 (01) 57-89
- 2 Egan JP. Articulation testing methods. Laryngoscope 1948; 58 (09) 955-991
- 3 Tato JM, Lorente F, Belo JA, Tato JM. Características acústicas de nuestro idioma. Rev Otorrinolaringol 1948; 1: 17-34
- 4 Cancel-Ferrer C. Hearing test (social adequacy index) for Spanish-speaking people (unpublished master's thesis). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan; 1951
- 5 Ferrer O. Speech audiometry: a discrimination test for Spanish language. Laryngoscope 1960; 70 (11) 1541-1551
- 6 Rosenblüt B, De Cruz J. Listas de palabras en español para pruebas de discriminación. Rev Otorrinolaringol 1962; 22 (02) 37-49
- 7 Quirós J. Material de listas de sílabos y palabras para logoaudiometría. Buenos Aires, AR: La Escuela Superior de Fonoaudiología Corrientos; 1965: 1723
- 8 Berruecos TP, Rodríguez JL. Determination of the phonetic percent in the Spanish language spoken in Mexico City, and the formation of PB lists of trochaic words. International Audiology 1967; 6 (02) 211-216
- 9 Zubick HH, Irizarry LM, Rosen L, Feudo Jr P, Kelly JH, Strome M. Development of speech-audiometric materials for native Spanish-speaking adults. Audiology 1983; 22 (01) 88-102
- 10 Weisleder P, Hodgson WR. Evaluation of four Spanish word-recognition-ability lists. Ear Hear 1989; 10 (06) 387-392
- 11 Whitley MS. Spanish/English Contrasts: A Course in Spanish Linguistics. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press; 2002
- 12 Algeo J. What consonant clusters are possible?. Word 1978; 29 (03) 206-224
- 13 Bedore L. The acquisition of Spanish. In: Taylor O, Leonard L. , eds. Language Acquisition Across North America: Cross-Cultural and Cross-Linguistic Perspectives. San Diego, CA: Singular; 1999: 157-207
- 14 Guirao M, García-Jurado M. Frequency of occurrence of phonemes in American Spanish. Revue Québécoise de Linguistique 1990; 19 (02) 135-149
- 15 Julliand A, Chang-Rodríguez E. , eds. Frequency Dictionary of Spanish Words. Hague, The Netherlands: Mouton; 1964
- 16 Fucks W. Die mathematischen Gesetze der Bildung von Sprachelementen aus ihren Bestandteilen (The mathematical laws of the formation of language elements from their components). Nachrichtentechnische Fachberichte 1956; 3: 7-21
- 17 McCullough JA, Wilson RH, Birck JD, Anderson LG. A multimedia approach for estimating speech recognition of multilingual clients. Am J Audiol 1994; 3 (01) 19-22
- 18 Bishop A. Psychometrically equivalent bisyllabic word-lists for word recognition testing in Spanish (unpublished master's thesis). Provo, UT: Brigham Young University; 2009
- 19 American Standards Association. Volume Measurements of Electrical Speech and Program Waves, C16.5–1954. New York, NY: American Standards Association; 1954
- 20 Killion MC. Comparison of vu-meter-based and rms-based calibration of speech levels. J Acoust Soc Am 2009; 126 (03) EL97-EL99
- 21 Adobe Systems, Inc.. Adobe Audition CCC. San Jose, CA: 2015
- 22 Chinn HA, Gannett DK, Morris RM. A new standard volume indicator and reference level. Bell Labs Tech J 1940; 19 (01) 94-137
- 23 Wilson RH. Amplitude (vu and rms) and temporal (ms) measures of two Northwestern University Auditory Test No. 6 recordings. J Am Acad Audiol 2015; 26 (04) 346-354
- 24 American National Standards Institute. Specification for Audiometers ANSI S3.6–2010. New York, NY: American National Standards Institute; 2010
- 25 Wilson RH, Sanchez VA. Effects of the carrier phrase on word recognition performances by younger and older listeners using two stimulus paradigms. J Am Acad Audiol 2020; 31 (06) 412-441
- 26 Wilson RH, Margolis RH. Measurement of the auditory thresholds for speech stimuli. In: Konkle D, Rintelmann W. , eds. Principles of Speech Audiometry. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press; 1983: 79-126
- 27 Finney DJ. Statistical Method in Biological Essay. London: C. Griffen; 1952
- 28 Dirks DD, Takayanagi S, Moshfegh A, Noffsinger PD, Fausti SA. Examination of the neighborhood activation theory in normal and hearing-impaired listeners. Ear Hear 2001; 22 (01) 1-13
- 29 Shi L-F, Sánchez D. The role of word familiarity in Spanish/English bilingual word recognition. Int J Audiol 2011; 50 (02) 66-76
- 30 Luce PA, Pisoni DB. Recognizing spoken words: the neighborhood activation model. Ear Hear 1998; 19 (01) 1-36
- 31 Kroes PA. Comparison of the relative intelligibility of four Spanish speech-audiometric tests (unpublished doctoral dissertation). Columbus, OH: Ohio State University; 1973
- 32 Flores L, Aoyama K. A comparison of psychometric performance on four modified Spanish word recognition tests. Texas Journal of Audiology and Speech-Language Pathology 2008; 31: 64-70
- 33 Black JW. Accompaniments of word intelligibility. J Speech Hear Disord 1952; 17 (04) 409-418