PURPOSE: To determine whether a clinically obtainable measure of audibility, the aided Speech Intelligibility Index (SII; American National Standards Institute, 2007), is more sensitive than the pure-tone average (PTA) at predicting the lexical abilities of children who wear hearing aids (CHA). METHOD: School-age CHA and age-matched children with normal hearing (CNH) repeated words and nonwords, learned novel words, and completed a standardized receptive vocabulary test. Analyses of covariance allowed comparison of the 2 groups. For CHA, regression analyses determined whether SII held predictive value over and beyond PTA. RESULTS: CHA demonstrated poorer performance than CNH on tests of word and nonword repetition and receptive vocabulary. Groups did not differ on word learning. Aided SII was a stronger predictor of word and nonword repetition and receptive vocabulary than PTA. After accounting for PTA, aided SII remained a significant predictor of nonword repetition and receptive vocabulary. CONCLUSIONS: Despite wearing hearing aids, CHA performed more poorly on 3 of 4 lexical measures. Individual differences among CHA were predicted by aided SII. Unlike PTA, aided SII incorporates hearing aid amplification characteristics and speech-frequency weightings and may provide a more valid estimate of the child's access to and ability to learn from auditory input in real-world environments.
PURPOSE: To determine whether a clinically obtainable measure of audibility, the aided Speech Intelligibility Index (SII; American National Standards Institute, 2007), is more sensitive than the pure-tone average (PTA) at predicting the lexical abilities of children who wear hearing aids (CHA). METHOD: School-age CHA and age-matched children with normal hearing (CNH) repeated words and nonwords, learned novel words, and completed a standardized receptive vocabulary test. Analyses of covariance allowed comparison of the 2 groups. For CHA, regression analyses determined whether SII held predictive value over and beyond PTA. RESULTS:CHA demonstrated poorer performance than CNH on tests of word and nonword repetition and receptive vocabulary. Groups did not differ on word learning. Aided SII was a stronger predictor of word and nonword repetition and receptive vocabulary than PTA. After accounting for PTA, aided SII remained a significant predictor of nonword repetition and receptive vocabulary. CONCLUSIONS: Despite wearing hearing aids, CHA performed more poorly on 3 of 4 lexical measures. Individual differences among CHA were predicted by aided SII. Unlike PTA, aided SII incorporates hearing aid amplification characteristics and speech-frequency weightings and may provide a more valid estimate of the child's access to and ability to learn from auditory input in real-world environments.
Authors: Elizabeth A Walker; David Kessler; Kelsey Klein; Meredith Spratford; Jacob J Oleson; Anne Welhaven; Ryan W McCreery Journal: J Speech Lang Hear Res Date: 2019-06-13 Impact factor: 2.297
Authors: Elizabeth A Walker; Lenore Holte; Ryan W McCreery; Meredith Spratford; Thomas Page; Mary Pat Moeller Journal: J Speech Lang Hear Res Date: 2015-10 Impact factor: 2.297
Authors: Elizabeth A Walker; Ryan W McCreery; Meredith Spratford; Jacob J Oleson; John Van Buren; Ruth Bentler; Patricia Roush; Mary Pat Moeller Journal: Ear Hear Date: 2015 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 3.570
Authors: J Bruce Tomblin; Melody Harrison; Sophie E Ambrose; Elizabeth A Walker; Jacob J Oleson; Mary Pat Moeller Journal: Ear Hear Date: 2015 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 3.570