PURPOSE: To construct a table for upper and lower limits of the 95% critical range for changes in word recognition scores obtained with monosyllabic word lists (of lengths 10, 25, 50, and 100 words) using newly available methods. Although such a table has been available for nearly 30 years (A. R. Thornton & M. J. M. Raffin, 1978), the earlier table was constructed by calculation and used an approximation to the variance of the difference score between 2 administrations of word lists of identical size. It has been used clinically, reproduced, and recommended for use by clinicians in handbooks and textbooks. METHOD: The new table was created using computer simulation of the relevant distributions and a direct estimate of the variance of the difference score between 2 tests, calculated using the simulated results. RESULTS: The new table differed from the previous table in 23% of entries. Critical ranges were both narrowed (82%) and expanded (18%). No range changed by more than 1 word correct in any direction. The original table was most accurate for list sizes of 25 words each. CONCLUSION: Using the new table will provide more accurate estimates of the 95% critical range for successive administrations of word recognition tests.
PURPOSE: To construct a table for upper and lower limits of the 95% critical range for changes in word recognition scores obtained with monosyllabic word lists (of lengths 10, 25, 50, and 100 words) using newly available methods. Although such a table has been available for nearly 30 years (A. R. Thornton & M. J. M. Raffin, 1978), the earlier table was constructed by calculation and used an approximation to the variance of the difference score between 2 administrations of word lists of identical size. It has been used clinically, reproduced, and recommended for use by clinicians in handbooks and textbooks. METHOD: The new table was created using computer simulation of the relevant distributions and a direct estimate of the variance of the difference score between 2 tests, calculated using the simulated results. RESULTS: The new table differed from the previous table in 23% of entries. Critical ranges were both narrowed (82%) and expanded (18%). No range changed by more than 1 word correct in any direction. The original table was most accurate for list sizes of 25 words each. CONCLUSION: Using the new table will provide more accurate estimates of the 95% critical range for successive administrations of word recognition tests.
Authors: Steven W Cheung; Caroline A Racine; Jennifer Henderson-Sabes; Carly Demopoulos; Annette M Molinaro; Susan Heath; Srikantan S Nagarajan; Andrea L Bourne; John E Rietcheck; Sarah S Wang; Paul S Larson Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 2019-09-24 Impact factor: 5.115
Authors: Bernadette Rakszawski; Rose Wright; Jamie H Cadieux; Lisa S Davidson; Christine Brenner Journal: J Am Acad Audiol Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 1.664