Download PDF
J Am Acad Audiol 1999; 10(03): 113-123
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1748471
Original Article

Lexical Neighborhood Test: Test-Retest Reliability and Interlist Equivalency

Authors

  • Karen Iler Kirk

    Department of Otolaryngology—HNS, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana

  • Laurie S. Eisenberg

    Children's Auditory Research and Evaluation Center, House Ear Institute, Los Angeles, California.

  • Amy S. Martinez

    Children's Auditory Research and Evaluation Center, House Ear Institute, Los Angeles, California.

  • Marcia Hay-McCutcheon

    Department of Otolaryngology—HNS, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana
Further Information
Also available at
 PDF Download Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

This study examined the reliability and interlist equivalency of two new recorded spoken word recognition measures, the Lexical Neighborhood Test (LNT) and the Multisyllabic Lexical Neighborhood Test (MLNT), and evaluated the effects of lexical difficulty on spoken word recognition by children with hearing loss. Participants were 16 children with prelingual, profound deafness who used a cochlear implant. Test-retest reliability was high and no significant interlist differences were observed for both measures. In addition, we found that lexically "easy" words (i.e., those that occur often and have few phonemically words with which they are similar) were recognized correctly more often than lexically "hard" words (i.e., those with opposite characteristics). The results demonstrate that the LNT and MLNT provide reliable information about the spoken word recognition abilities of children with profound hearing loss who use cochlear implants. In addition, these new measures also provide more detailed information about the way in which these children organize and access spoken words from long-term lexical memory.

Abbreviations: CHILDES = Child Language Data Exchange System; LNT = Lexical Neighborhood Test; MLNT = Multisyllabic Lexical Neighborhood Test; NAM = Neighborhood Activation Model; OC = oral communication; PB-K = Phonetically Balanced Kindergarten Word Lists; PTA = average of the pure-tone threshold hearing levels at 500, 1000, and 2000 Hz; SPL = speech presentation level; TC = total communication

Key Words

Children - cochlear implants - hearing loss - spoken word recognition


Publication History

Article published online:
28 April 2022

© 1999. 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

  • BaddeleyA, Gathercole S, Papagno C. (1998). The phonological loop as a language learning device. Psychol Rev 105:158–173.
  • Bilger RC. (1984). Speech recognition test development. ASHA Reports 14:2–7.
  • Carhart R. (1965). Problems in the measurement of speech discrimination. Arch Otolaryngol 82:253–260.
  • Dunn LM. (1965). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
  • Fryauf-Bertschy H, Tyler RS, Kelsay DM, Gantz BJ. (1992). Performance over time of congenitally deaf and postlingually deafened children using a multichannel cochlear implant. J Speech Hear Res 35:892–902.
  • Fryauf-Berstchy H, Tyler RS, Kelsay DMR, Gantz BJ, Woodworth GG. (1997). Cochlear implant use by prelingually deafened children: the influences of age at implant and length of device use. J Speech Hear Res 40:183–199.
  • Greensberg JH, Jenkins JJ. (1964). Studies in the psychological correlates of the sound system of American English. Word 20:157–177.
  • Haskins H. (1949). A Phonetically Balanced Test of Speech Discrimination for Children. Unpublished master's thesis, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.
  • Hirsh IJ, Davis H, Silverman SR, Reynolds EG, Eldert E, Benson RW. (1952). Development of materials for speech audiometry. J Speech Hear Disord 17:321–337.
  • Hodgson W. (1985). Testing infants and young children. In: Katz J, ed. Handbook of Clinical Audiology. Baltimore: William & Wilkins, 642–663.
  • Hood JD, Poole JP. (1980). Influence of the speaker and other factors affecting speech intelligibility. Audiology 19:434–455.
  • Hudgins CV, Hawkins JE, Karlin JE, Stevens SS. (1947). The development of recorded auditory tests for measuring hearing loss for speech. Laryngoscope 57:57–89.
  • Jerger S. (1984). Speech audiometry. In: Jerger J, ed. Pediatric Audiology. San Diego: College Hill Press, 71–94.
  • Kirk KI. (1996). Lexical Discrimination and Age at Implantation at Implantation: A First Report. Paper presented at the Acoustical Society of America, Indianapolis, IN.
  • Kirk KI, Pisoni DB, Osberger MJ. (1995). Lexical effects on spoken word recognition by pediatric cochlear implant users. Ear Hear 16:470–481.
  • Landauer TK, Streeter LA. (1973). Structural differences between common and rare words: failure of equivalence assumptions for theories of word recognition. J Verb Learn Verb Behau 12:119–131.
  • Logan JS. (1992). A Computational Analysis of Young Children's Lexicons. Research on Speech Perception Technical Report No. 8. Bloomington, IN: Speech Research Laboratory, Indiana University.
  • Luce PA. (1986). Neighborhoods of Words in the Mental Lexicon. Research on Speech Perception Technical Report No. 6. Bloomington, IN: Speech Research Laboratory, Indiana University.
  • Luce PA, Carrell TD. (1981). Creating and Editing Waveforms Using WAVES. Research in Speech Perception Technical Report No. 7. Bloomington, IN: Speech Research Laboratory, Indiana University.
  • Luce PA, Pisoni DB. (1998). Recognizing spoken words: The Neighborhood Activation Model. Ear Hear 19:1–36.
  • Luce PA, Pisoni DB, Goldinger SD. (1990). Similarity neighborhoods of spoken words. In: Altmann GTM, ed. Cognitive Models of Speech Processing: Psycholinguistic and Computational Perspectives. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • MacWhinney B, Snow C. (1985). The child language data exchange system. J Child Lang 12:271–296.
  • Miyamoto RT, Osberger MJ, Robbins AM, Myres WA, Kessler Κ. (1993). Prelingually deafened children's performance with the Nucleus multichannel cochlear implant. Am J Otol 14:437–445.
  • Pisoni DB, Geers A. (1998). Working Memory in Deaf Children with Cochlear Implants: Correlations between Digit Span and Measures of Spoken Language. Paper presented at the Seventh Symposium on Cochlear Implants in Children, Iowa City, IA.
  • Pisoni DB, Nusbaum HC, Luce PA, Slowiaczek LM. (1985). Speech perception, word recognition and the structure of the lexicon. Speech Communication 4:75–95.
  • Pisoni DB, Svirsky MA, Kirk KI, Miyamoto RT. (1997). Looking at the "Stars": A First Report on Intercorrelations among Measures of Speech Perception, Intelligibility, and Language in Pediatric Cochlear Implant Users. Research on Spoken Language Processing Progress Report No. 21. Bloomington, IN: Speech Research Laboratory, Indiana University, 51–92.
  • Reynell JK, Huntley M. (1985). Reynell Developmental Language Scales—Revised, Edition 2. Windsor, England: NFER-Nelson Publishing.
  • Robbins AM, Renshaw JJ, Osberger MJ. (1995). Common Phrases Test. Indianapolis, IN: Indiana University School of Medicine.
  • Sehgal ST, Kirk KI, Svirsky M, Miyamoto RT. (1998). The effects of processor strategy on the speech perception performance of pediatric Nucleus multichannel cochlear implant users. Ear Hear 19:149–161.
  • Shea JJ III, Domico EH, Lupfer M. (1994). Speech perception after multichannel cochlear implantation in the pediatric patient. Am J Otol 15:66–70.
  • Skinner MW, Clark GW, Whitford LA, Seligman PM, Staller SJ, Shipp DB, Shallop JK, Everingham C, Menapace CM, Arndt PL, Antogenelli T, Brimacombe JA, Pijl S, Daniels P, George CR, McDermott HJ, Beiter AL. (1994). Evaluation of a new spectral peak coding strategy for the Nucleus 22 Channel Cochlear Implant System. Am J Otol 15:15–27.
  • Smith K, Hodgson W (1970). The effects of systematic reinforcement on the speech discrimination responses of normal and hearing-impaired children. J Auditory Res 10:110–117.
  • Staller SJ, Beiter AL, Brimacombe JA, Mecklenberg DJ, Arndt P. (1991). Pediatric performance with the Nucleus 22–channel cochlear implant system. Am J Otol 12(Suppl): 126–136.
  • Tobias JV. (1964). On phonemic analysis of speech discrimination tests. J Speech Hear Res 7:98–100.
  • Waltzman SB, Cohen NL, Gomolin RH, Green JE, Shapiro WH, Hoffman RA, Roland JT Jr. (1997). Long-term results of early cochlear implantation in congenitally and prelingually deafened children. Am J Otol 18:342–349.