Download PDF
J Am Acad Audiol 1999; 10(08): 429-435
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1748516
Original Article

Word Recognition Performance for Northwestern University Auditory Test No. 6 Word Lists in Quiet and in Competing Message

Daniel T. Stoppenbach
Department of Communicative Disorders, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin
,
Jeanne M. Craig
Department of Communicative Disorders, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin
,
Terry L. Wiley
Department of Communicative Disorders, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin
,
Richard H. Wilson
VA Medical Center, Mountain Home, Tennessee
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
  PDF Download  Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Word recognition norms were determined for the Northwestern University Auditory Test No. 6 (NU-6) released on the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Disc 1.1. Word recognition performance (in quiet and in competing message) was measured at 12 presentation levels for 24 young adults with normal hearing. Test-retest reliability also was evaluated. Word recognition scores for VA Disc 1.1 were generally higher than those reported for VA Disc 1.0. The differences in NU-6 scores across disc versions, however, were small and unlikely to affect clinical decisions based on word recognition tests. Score differences on test-retest for the VA Disc 1.1 version of the NU-6 with a competing message background also were small and unlikely to affect clinical outcomes. Overall, based on comparisons of scores for the disc versions of the NU-6, it appears that the two different recordings can be used interchangeably for clinical applications.

Abbreviations: CD = compact disc, NU-6 = Northwestern University Auditory Test No. 6, VA = Department of Veterans Affairs, W/CML = word to competing message level

Key Words

Articulation functions - performance intensity functions - speech audiometry - word recognition


Publication History

Article published online:
03 May 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

  • American National Standards Institute. (1987). American National Standard Specifications for Instruments to Measure Aural Acoustic Impedance and Admittance. (Aural Acoustic Immittance). (ANSI S3.39-1987). New York: ANSI.
  • American National Standards Institute. (1989). American National Standard Specification for Audiometers. (ANSI S3.6-1989). New York: ANSI.
  • American National Standards Institute. (1991). American National Standard Maximum Permissible Ambient Noise Levels for Audiometric Test Rooms. (ANSI S3.1-1991) New York: ANSI.
  • American Psychological Association. (1974). Standards for Educational and Psychological Tests. Washington DC: APA.
  • American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (1990). Guidelines for screening for hearing impairment and middle-ear disorders. ASHA 32(Suppl 2): 17–24.
  • Audiology Section, Auditory Research Laboratory, VA Medical Center, Long Beach, CA. (1989). Speech Recognition and Identification Materials, Disc 1 [compact audio disc]. Washington, DC: Rehabilitation Research and Development Center.
  • Audiology Section, Auditory Research Laboratory, VA Medical Center Long Beach, CA. (1991). Speech Recognition and Identification Materials, Disc 1.1 [compact audio disc]. Washington, DC: Medical Research Service Rehabilitation Research and Development Center.
  • Beattie RC, Edgerton Β J, Svihovec DV. (1977). A comparison of the Auditec of St. Louis cassette recording of NU-6 and CID W-22 on a normal hearing population. J Speech Hear Disord 42:60–64.
  • Beattie RC, Svihovec DA, Edgerton BJ. (1978). Comparison of speech detection and spondee thresholds and half-versus full-list intelligibility scores with MLV and taped presentations of NU-6. J Am Audiol Soc 3:267–272
  • Bess FH, Townsend TH. (1977). Word discrimination for listeners with flat sensorineural hearing losses. J Speech Hear Disord 42:232–237.
  • Bilger RC. (1984). Speech recognition test development. In: Elkins E, ed. Speech Recognition by the Hearing-Impaired. ASHA Reports. Rockville, MD: American-Speech-Language-Hearing Association, 2–15.
  • Carhart R. (1965). Problems in the measurement of speech discrimination. Arch Otolaryngol 82:253–260.
  • Causey CD, Hermanson CL, Hood LJ, Bowling LS. (1983). A comparative evaluation of the Maryland NU-6 Auditory Test. J Speech Hear Disord 48:62–69.
  • Conrad HS. (1951). The experimental tryout of test materials. In: Lindquist EF, ed. Educational Measurement. Washington, DC: American Council on Education, 250–265.
  • Fletcher H, Steinberg JC. (1929). Articulation testing methods. Bell Syst Tech J 8:806–854.
  • Frank T, Craig CH. (1984). Comparison of the Auditec and Rintelmann Recordings of the NU-6. J Speech Hear Disord 49:267–271.
  • Kreul E J, Bell DW, Nixon JC. (1969). Factors affecting speech discrimination test difficulty. J Speech Hear Res 12:281–287.
  • Kreul EJ, Nixon JC, Kryter KD, Bell DW, Lang JS, Schubert ED. (1968). A proposed clinical test of speech discrimination. J Speech Hear Res 11:536–552.
  • Maroonroge S, Diefendorf AO. (1984). Comparing normal hearing and hearing-impaired subject's performance on the Northwestern Auditory Test Number 6, California Consonant Test, and Pascoe's High-Frequency Word Test. Ear Hear 5:356–360.
  • Martin FN, Champlin CA, Chambers JA. (1998). Seventh survey of audiometric practices in the United States. J Am Acad Audiol 9:95–104.
  • Orchik DJ, Krygier KM, Cutts BP. (1979). A comparison of the NU-6 and W-22 Speech Discrimination Tests for assessing sensorineural hearing loss. J Speech Hear Disord 44:522–527.
  • Stuart A, Green WB, Phillips DP, Stenstrom R. (1998). List equivalency of the Northwestern University Auditory Test No. 6 in quiet and in continuous broad band noise. J Speech Lang Pathol Audiol 18:121–125.
  • Syntrillium Software Corporation. (1977). Cool Edit Pro™. Phoenix: Syntrillium Software Corporation.
  • Thornton A, Raffin M. (1978). Speech-discrimination scores modeled as a binomial variable. J Speech Hear Res 21:507–518.
  • Tillman TW, Carhart R. (1966). An Expanded Test for Speech Discrimination Utilizing CNC Monosyllabic Words: Northwestern University Auditory Test No. 6. Technical report no. SAM-TR-66-55. Brooks Air Force Base, TX: USAF School of Aerospace Medicine.
  • Tillman TW, Olsen WO. (1973). Speech audiometry. In: Jerger J, ed. Modern Developments in Audiology. 2nd ed. New York: Academic Press, 37–74.
  • Watson LA, Tolan Τ. (1949). Hearing Tests and Hearing Instruments. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins.
  • Wiley TW, Cruickshanks KJ, Nondahl DM, Tweed TS, Klein R, Klein BEK. (1998). Aging and word recognition in competing message. J Am Acad Audiol 9:191–198.
  • Wiley TL, Stoppenbach DT, Feldhake LJ, Moss KA, Thordardottir ET. (1995). Audiologic practices: what is popular versus what is supported by evidence. Am J Audiol 4:26–34.
  • Wilson RH. (1997). Speech and other materials on compact disc for use in auditory assessment. In: Mendel LL, Danhauer JL, eds. Audiologic Evaluation and Management and Speech Perception Assessment. San Diego: Singular, 169–199.
  • Wilson RH, Coley KE, Haenel JL, Browning KM. (1976). Northwestern University Auditory Test No. 6: normative and comparative intelligibility functions. J Am Audiol Soc 1:221-228.
  • Wilson RH, Oyler AL. (1997). Psychometric functions for the CID W-22 and NU Auditory Test No. 6. materials spoken by the same speaker. Ear Hear 18:430–433.
  • Wilson RH, Preece JP. (1990). Development of a compact disc for speech audiometry. Audiology Today July/August:24–26.
  • Wilson RH, Zizz CA, Shanks JE, Causey GD. (1990). Normative data in quiet, broadband noise, and competing message for Northwestern University Auditory Test No. 6 by a female speaker. J Speech Hear Disord 55:771–778.