Browse

Some Questions about Speech Audiometry

Cited 0 time in Web of Science Cited 0 time in Scopus
Authors
Lee, Seunghwan
Issue Date
1985
Publisher
서울대학교 언어교육원
Citation
어학연구, Vol.21 No.2, pp. 215-253
Abstract
A number of test batteries for speech audiometry were reviewed from the viewpoints of reliability and validity. Included in this review were the following: (1) CID Auditory Test No. I (36 spondees for SRT) (Hirsch et al. 1952), (2) CID Auditory Test No. 22 (PB-50 monosyllabic words) (Hirsch et aI. 1952), (3) NU Auditory Tests (TilIman et al.
1963, TilIman and Carhart 1966), (4) Multiple Choice Discrimination Test (MCDT) (Schultz and Schubert 1969), (5) The Rhyme Tests (Fairbanks 1958, House et al. 1963, 1965, Griffiths 1967), (6) The K.S.U. Speech Discrimination Test (Berger 1969), (7) The University of Oklahoma Closed-Response Speech Test (OUCRT) (Pederson and Studebaker 1972), (8) The California Consonant Test (CCT) (Owens and Schubert 1977), (9) The Synthetic Sentence Identification (SSI) (Speaks and Jerger 1965, Jerger, Speaks, and Trammel 1968), and (10) The Speech Perception in Noise Test (SPIN Test) (Kalikow, Stevens, and Elliot 1977). It was concluded that the audiological test materials for speech are reliable in the sense that the test results we obtain from them are numerically consistent. The consistencies, however, become meaningless when an attempt is made to interpret them in terms of speech segments (i.e., phonemes and allophones) and rulegoverned linguistic structures of English. They are disappointingly devoid of validity.
ISSN
0254-4474
Language
English
URI
http://hdl.handle.net/10371/85733
Files in This Item:
Appears in Collections:
Language Education Institute (언어교육원)Language Research (어학연구)Language Research (어학연구) Volume 21 Number 1/4 (1985)
  • mendeley

Items in S-Space are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Browse