Download PDF
J Am Acad Audiol 2001; 12(08): 390-396
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1745625
Original Article

Evaluation of the Computer-Assisted Speech Perception Assessment Test (CASPA)

Carol L. Mackersie
Department of Communicative Disorders, San Diego State University, San Diego, California
,
Arthur Boothroyd
Department of Communicative Disorders, San Diego State University, San Diego, California
,
Donna Minniear
Department of Communicative Disorders, San Diego State University, San Diego, California
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
  PDF Download  Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Interlist equivalency and short-term practice effects were evaluated for the recorded stimuli of the Computer-Assisted Speech Perception Assessment (CASPA) Test. Twenty lists, each consisting of 10 consonant-vowel-consonant words, were administered to 20 adults with normal hearing. The lists were presented at 50 dB SPL (Leq) in the presence of spectrally matched steady-state noise (55 dB SPL Leq). Phoneme recognition scores for the first list presented were significantly lower than for the second through the twentieth list presented, indicating a small practice effect. Phoneme scores for 4 of the lists (3, 6, 7, and 16) were significantly higher than scores for the remaining 16 lists by approximately 10 percentage points. Eliminating the effects of interlist differences reduced the 95 percent confidence interval of a test score based on a single list from 18.4 to 16.1 percentage points. Although interlist differences have only a small effect on confidence limits, some clinicians may wish to eliminate them by excluding lists 3, 6, 7, and 16 from the test. The practice effect observed here can be eliminated by administering one 10-word practice list before beginning the test.

Abbreviations: ANOVA = analysis of variance, CASPA = Computer-Assisted Speech Perception Assessment, CASRA = Computer-Assisted Speech Recognition Assessment, CVC = consonant-vowel-consonant

Keywords

Computer-Assisted Speech Perception Assessment (CASPA) - list equivalency - outcome assessment - phoneme recognition - speech audiometry - speech perception - word recognition


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

 

  • REFERENCES

  • 1Lexical redundancy actually reduces the number of statistically independent items from 3 to approximately 2.5 for listeners with normal language skills (Boothroyd and Nittrouer, 1988)
  • REFERENCES
  • Bentler R. (2000). List equivalency and test-retest reliability of the Speech in Noise Test. Am J Audiol 9:1-17.
  • Bentler R, Neibuhr D, Getta J, Anderson C. (1993a). Longitudinal study of hearing aid effectiveness I. Objective measures. J Speech Hear Res 36:808-819.
  • Bentler R, Neibuhr D, Getta J, Anderson C. (1993b). Longitudinal study of hearing aid effectiveness II. Subjective measures. J Speech Hear Res 36:820-831.
  • Boothroyd A. (1968a). Developments in speech audiometry. Br J Audiol 2:3-10.
  • Boothroyd A. (1968b). Statistical theory of the speech discrimination score. J Acoust Soc Am 43:362-367.
  • Boothroyd A. (1999). Computer-Assisted Speech Perception Assessment (CASPA), Version 3.0 [computer software].
  • Boothroyd A, Nittrouer S. (1988). Mathematical treatment of context effects in phoneme and word recognition. J Acoust Soc Am 84:101-114.
  • Gelfand S. (1998). Optimizing the reliability of speech recognition scores. J Speech Lang Hear Res 41:1088-1102.
  • Iler Kirk K, Eisenberg LS, Martinez AS, Hay-McCutcheon M. (1999). Lexical Neighborhood Test: test-retest reliability and interlist equivalency. J Am Acad Audiol 10:113-121.
  • Luce P, Pisoni D. (1998). Recognizing spoken words: the neighborhood activation model. Ear Hear 19:1-36.
  • Meyer T, Pisoni D. (1999). Some computational analyses of the PB-K test: effects of frequency and lexical density on spoken word recognition. Ear Hear 20:363-371.
  • Olsen WO, Van Tasell DJ, Speaks CE. (1997). Phoneme and word recognition for words in isolation and in sentences. Ear Hear 18:175-186.
  • Oruganti B. (2000). The Effects of High-Frequency Emphasis and Amplitude Compression on the Short-Term Intensity Range of Speech. Doctoral dissertation, City University of New York, New York.
  • Shore I, Bilger R, Hirsh I. (1960). Hearing aid evaluation: reliability of repeated measures. J Speech Hear Disord 25:152-170.
  • Studebaker G. (1985). A “rationalized” arcsine transform. J Speech Hear Res 28:455-462.
  • Stockley KB, Green WB. (2000). Interlist equivalency of the Northwestern University Auditory Test No. 6 in quiet and noise with adult hearing-impaired individuals. J Am Acad Audiol 11:91-96.
  • Thornton A, Raffin M. (1978). Speech discrimination scores modeled as a binomial variable. J Speech Hear Res 21:507-518.