Development of the Persian version of high-frequency emphasis quick speech in noise

Background and Aim: The quick speech in noise (Q-SIN) test shows the difficulty of speech perception in noise by specifying signal to noise ratio (SNR) loss. Although the Persian version of Q-SIN has been already constructed, the high-frequency emphasis version of this test is not available. The pr...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Jamileh Fatahi, Maryam Amiri Jahromi, Fahimeh Hajiabolhassan, Amirsalar Jafarpisheh, Nariman Rahbar, Elham Faghihzadeh
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Tehran University of Medical Sciences 2019-06-01
Series:Auditory and Vestibular Research
Subjects:
Online Access:https://avr.tums.ac.ir/index.php/avr/article/view/774
Description
Summary:Background and Aim: The quick speech in noise (Q-SIN) test shows the difficulty of speech perception in noise by specifying signal to noise ratio (SNR) loss. Although the Persian version of Q-SIN has been already constructed, the high-frequency emphasis version of this test is not available. The present study aimed to construct six lists with high-frequency emphasis and implement it. Methods: We are going to prepare a high-frequency emphasis version of Q-SIN and then test it on a small sample. First, researchers designed the relevant sentences; then experts examined their content and face validity. According to the criteria for developing the Q-SIN test, six lists with high-frequency emphasis were prepared. The test was examined on 26 (13 male and 13 female), 18−35 years old individuals with normal hearing. To determine the test reliability, it was re-administered three weeks later with the same conditions. Results: Of 76 sentences prepared, 36 sentences received enough credit after determination of their content and face validity. These 36 sentences were used to make 6 lists. The mean value of SNR50 in the Persian language was obtained -4 dB. The mean values of SNR loss in 6 lists were -1.65, -1.8, -2.23, -1.61, -2.38 and -2.07. The results showed equivalency of lists 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6. Examination of test-retest reliability indicated that all lists except the list 2were reliable. Conclusion: The lists of 1, 3, 4, and 6 are reli­able and equivalent and can be used in clinical application.
ISSN:2423-480X