OBJECTIVE: To determine administration times for word recognition presented via monitored live voice (MLV) and compact disc (CD) recordings. DESIGN: A quasi-experimental design was used. Fifty-word NU-6 lists were presented in three conditions: (1) MLV, (2) short ISI CD recording, and (3) long ISI CD recording. STUDY SAMPLE: Listeners with normal hearing (NH) and hearing impairment (HI) participated in this study. RESULTS: Average administration time using MLV was significantly shorter than using recorded word lists for both groups of listeners. MLV presentation to the NH listeners was significantly faster than the MLV presentation to the HI listeners. There were no significant differences between groups in the administration times for any of the recorded lists (long or short ISI). Considerably more variability in administration time was observed for MLV presentation compared to recorded presentations. CONCLUSIONS: MLV presentation was about one minute faster than the shortest CD recording of the NU-6 fifty-item word lists, but it was only 49 seconds quicker when administering tests to individuals with hearing loss. Because the majority of our patients are hearing impaired, the difference of 49 seconds is not clinically significant. This difference is even less when 25-item word lists are used.
OBJECTIVE: To determine administration times for word recognition presented via monitored live voice (MLV) and compact disc (CD) recordings. DESIGN: A quasi-experimental design was used. Fifty-word NU-6 lists were presented in three conditions: (1) MLV, (2) short ISI CD recording, and (3) long ISI CD recording. STUDY SAMPLE: Listeners with normal hearing (NH) and hearing impairment (HI) participated in this study. RESULTS: Average administration time using MLV was significantly shorter than using recorded word lists for both groups of listeners. MLV presentation to the NH listeners was significantly faster than the MLV presentation to the HI listeners. There were no significant differences between groups in the administration times for any of the recorded lists (long or short ISI). Considerably more variability in administration time was observed for MLV presentation compared to recorded presentations. CONCLUSIONS: MLV presentation was about one minute faster than the shortest CD recording of the NU-6 fifty-item word lists, but it was only 49 seconds quicker when administering tests to individuals with hearing loss. Because the majority of our patients are hearing impaired, the difference of 49 seconds is not clinically significant. This difference is even less when 25-item word lists are used.