тел. +38 (044) 483-12-82

№4-6(7) 2024

Укр

DOI 10.37219/2528-8253-2022-6-04

Dieieva Yu, Bondarenko Ya

Approval of language test of monosyllabic words in Ukrainian language in ENT practice

Dieieva Julia V.
Bogomolets National Medical University, Kyiv, Ukraine
Head of the department of Otorhinolaryngology
MD, PhD, professor
E-mail: deyeva@bigmir.net
ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0552-1254
https://www.scopus.com/authid/detail.uri?authorId=55359076200
Bondarenko Yaroslava V.
Bogomolets National Medical University, Kyiv, Ukraine
PhD student
Email: marchenkojasa@gmail.com
ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0009-0002-2074-5934

APPROVAL OF LANGUAGE TEST OF MONOSYLLABIC WORDS IN UKRAINIAN LANGUAGE IN ENT PRACTICE

Dieieva Yu, Bondarenko Ya

Bogomolets National Medical University

email: deevanmu@gmail.com

Abstract

Today, it is generally accepted that audiologists and otolaryngologists use mostly polysyllabic speech tests for speech audiometry. A group of authors created the first tables of words in the native language in Ukraine for conducting audiometry in children (starting from preschool age). Despite thorough research in this field, the topic of speech audiometry still remains relevant. In world practice, it is generally accepted to use monosyllabic words in the diagnosis of hearing disorders by language tests. They allow more accurate determination of the degree and nature of hearing impairment, as they minimize the possibility of guessing words and reduce the influence of contextual clues. Research suggests that monosyllabic language tests may be more reliable in determining the type and severity of hearing impairment.

The purpose of the study was to test the developed language test of monosyllabic words for different types of hearing impairment and to compare the results with language tests generally accepted in Ukraine.

Results and discussions: According to the results of the study, it was established that in patients with normal hearing, a reliable difference was observed between the classical and monosyllabic tests at the levels of intelligibility of 50% and 100%. The difference between the tests was about 5 dB, with the classical test being easier than the monosyllabic test. Correlation analysis between test results showed a weak positive correlation (p=0.092 at 50% intelligibility and p=0.103 at 100% intelligibility), which was not statistically significant. This indicates the need to increase the sample to more accurately determine the relationship between the tests. So, our study-approbation of the monosyllabic language test showed its higher complexity compared to classical speech audiometry using numerals and Rymar lists of polysyllabic words.

Key words: speech audiometry, speech tests, monosyllabic words, hearing impairment, threshold tone audiometry, sensorineural hearing loss.

Download .PDF

References

  1. Dieieva YV, Bieliakova IA, Berestova AA, Kholodenko TYu, Hradiuk NM. [Development of a language test of one-syllable words in the ukrainian language]. Otorhinolaryngology. 2024;7(1):61-65. [Article in Ukrainian].
  2. Wilson RH. Development of a speech in multi-talker babble paradigm to assess word-recognition performance. J Am Acad Audiol. 2003 Nov;14(9): 453-70.
  3. Carhart R. Observations on relations between thresholds for pure tones and for speech. J Speech Hear Disord. 1971 Nov;36(4):476-83. doi: 10. 1044/jshd.3604.476.
  4. Thornton AR, Raffin MJ. Speech-discrimination scores modeled as a binomial variable. J Speech Hear Res. 1978 Sep;21(3):507-18. doi: 10.1044 /jshr.2103.507.
  5. Kramer SE, Kapteyn TS, Houtgast T. Occupational performance: Comparing normally-hearing and hearing-impaired employees using the Amsterdam Checklist for Hearing and Work. Int J Audiol. 2006 Sep;45(9):503-12. doi: 10.1080/ 14992020600754583.
  6. Bench J, Bamford J. Speech-Hearing Tests and the Spoken Language of Hearing-Impaired Children. London: Academic Press; 1979. 528 p.
  7. Wilson RH. Clinical experience with the words-in-noise test on 3430 veterans: Comparisons with pure-tone thresholds and word recognition in quiet. J Am Acad Audiol. 2011 Jul-Aug;22(7):405-23. doi: 10.3766/jaaa.22.7.3.
  8. Dubno JR, Dirks DD. Effects of Age and Mild Hearing Loss on Speech Recognition in Noise. J Acoust Soc Am. 1984 Jul;76(1):87-96. doi: 10.1121/1.391011.
  9. Zhao F, Mayr R. Pure tone audiometry and speech audiometry. In Manual of Clinical Phonetics (pp. 444-460). Routledge; 2021.
  10. Na W, Kim G, Kim G, Han W, Kim J. Effects of hearing loss on speech recognition under distracting conditions and working memory in the elderly. Clin Interv Aging. 2017 Aug 1:12:1175-1181. doi: 10.2147/CIA.S142962.
  11. British Society of Audiology (BSA). Speech Audiometry Protocols. BSA. 2022.
  12. Zabolotniy DI, Lutsenko VI, Bieliakova IA, Svitlychna YeI, Berestova AA, Kholodenko TYu, Hradiuk NM. Development of ukrainian speech discrimination tests for children (phase of formation of tables with words). Otorhinolaryngology. 2020;3(4):50-54. doi: 10.37219/2528-8253-2020-3-50. [Article in Ukrainian].
  13. Rymar NV. [Word tables for speech audiometry in Ukrainian]. Zhurnal ushnyh, nosovyh i gorlovyh boleznej. 2002;(3):72-75. [Article in Ukrainian].