J Am Acad Audiol 2001; 12(08): 423-433
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1745629
Original Article

Evaluation of a Revised Speech in Noise (RSIN) Test

Robyn M. Cox
Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, and School of Audiology and Speech Pathology. The University of Memphis, Memphis, Tennessee
Ginger A. Gray
School of Audiology and Speech Pathology. The University of Memphis, Memphis, Tennessee
Genevieve C. Alexander
Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, and School of Audiology and Speech Pathology. The University of Memphis, Memphis, Tennessee
› Author Affiliations


A revised version of the Speech in Noise (SIN) test was developed by reallocating the recorded test material on the compact disc into different lists (blocks). The goal was to increase the equivalence and reliability of the test blocks to enhance their usefulness in research settings. The Revised Speech in Noise test has four blocks of sentences. Each block comprises twice as many sentences as in the original SIN test. There are also practice sentences for each condition. Forty-two elderly subjects with normal hearing for their age and gender provided data on the equivalence of the new test blocks. The remaining inequalities in mean scores were mostly eliminated using score weighting. Critical differences were developed to promote interpretation of scores from the same individual under different conditions. The revisions substantially improved the equivalence of test blocks and their sensitivity to performance changes. Increased test time is the associated drawback.

Abbreviations: CD = critical difference, MDB = modified dual block, RAU = rationalized arcsine unit, RSIN = Revised Speech in Noise test, SBR = signal-to-babble ratio, SBR-50 = the signal-to-babble ratio corresponding to a score of 50 percent correct, SIN = Speech in Noise test, WRAU = weighted rationalized arcsine unit

Publication History

Article published online:
04 March 2022

© 2001. American Academy of Audiology. This article is published by Thieme.

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


  • 1Note that this reasoning is valid only when a pattern of consistent differences is observed between the tested conditions and you wish to determine the likelihood that this pattern of differences is owing to chance. Also, the joint probability computed with this method is an estimate rather than a precise value.
  • Bentler RA. (2000). List equivalency and test-retest reliability of the Speech in Noise test. Am J Audiol 9:84-100.
  • Brainerd LE. (2001). Software to Administer and Score the Revised Speech in Noise (RSIN) Test [Web Page]. www.ausp.memphis.edu/harl. Accessed Sept. 2000.
  • Dubno JR, Schaefer AB. (1992). Comparison of frequency selectivity and consonant recognition among hearing-impaired and masked normal-hearing listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 91:2110-2121.
  • Etymotic Research. (1993). The SIN Test Compact Disc. Elk Grove, IL: Martin Lane.
  • Fikret-Pasa S. (1993). The Effects of Compression Ratio on Speech Intelligibility and Quality. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms, Northwestern University.
  • Humes LE, Watson BU, Christensen LA, Cokely CG, Halling DC, Lee L. (1994). Factors associated with individual differences in clinical measures of speech recognition among the elderly. J Speech Hear Res 37:465-474.
  • International Standard Organization. (1984). AcousticsThreshold of Hearing by Air Conduction as a Function of Age and Sex for Otologically Normal Persons. ISO 7029: Global Engineering Documents.
  • Killion MC, Niquette PA. (2000). What can the pure-tone audiogram tell us about a patient’s SNR loss? Hear J 53(3):46-53.
  • Killion MC, Villchur E. (1993). Kessler was right—partly: but SIN test shows some aids improve hearing in noise. Hear J 46(9):31-5.
  • Studebaker GA. (1985). A “rationalized” arcsine transform. J Speech Hear Res 28:255-262.
  • Zurek PM, Delhorne LA. (1987). Consonant reception in noise by listeners with mild and moderate sensorineural hearing impairment. J Acoust Soc Am 82:1548-1559.