An omnibus survey conducted in 1994 by the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association reported that 85% of audiologists were monolingual English-speakers. Speech audiometry is typically conducted with English materials. However, a large and growing segment of the U.S. population is from non-English-speaking families. In the current climate, monolingual English-speaking audiologists who serve a rapidly growing minority population are ethically and legally challenged to develop valid speech audiometry tests. This article traces the development of speech audiometry in the United States and reports on the current status, focusing on the needs of a multilingual population in terms of measuring speech recognition threshold.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Abouchacra, K., Besing, J., Koehnke, J., & Letowski, T. (1998). Contemporary approaches to audiological assessment . In P. Dejonckere & H. F. M. Peters (Eds.) Communication and disorders: A science in progress. Proceedings of the 24th Congress International Association of Logopedics and phoniatrics: Volume II (p. 833-837). Nijmegen, The Netherlands: Nijmegen University Press .
2.
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. ( 1988). Guidelines for determining the threshold level for speech . Asha, 3, 85-88.
3.
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. ( 1994). Omnibus survey. Rockville, MD: Author.
4.
Battle, D.E. (1998). Communication disorders in multicultural populations (2nd ed.) Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann.
5.
Brinkmann, K., & Richter, U. (1997). Ensuring reliability and comparability of speech audiometry in Germany. In M. Martin (Ed.), Speech audiometry (pp. 106-130) . San Diego, CA : Singular.
6.
Cummins, J. (1981). The role of primary language development in promoting educational success for language minority students. Sacramento : California State Department of Education, Office of Bilingual Bicultural Education.
7.
Cummins, J. (1984). Bilingualism and special education: Issues in assessment and pedagogy. San Diego: College Hill Press.
8.
Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq.
Fletcher, H. (1929). Speech and hearing. New York : Van Nostrand.
11.
Gallaudet Research Institute. (1999, December). Regional and national summary report of data from the 1998-99 Annual Survey of Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Children and Youth. Washington, DC: Author.
12.
Gopaul-McNichol, S., & Thomas-Presswood, T. (1998). Working with linguistically and culturally different children. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
13.
Hirsh, I.J., Davis, H., Silverman, S.R., Reynolds, E.G., Eldert, E., & Benson, R.W. (1952). Development of materials for speech audiometry . Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 17, 321-327.
14.
Hopkinson, N.T. (1978). Speech reception threshold. In J. Katz (Ed.), Handbook of clinical audiology (pp. 141-148). Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins.
15.
Hudgins, C.V., Hawkins, J.E., Karlin, J.E., & Stevens, S.S. (1947). The development of recorded auditory tests for measuring hearing loss for speech. Laryngoscope, 57(1), 57-89.
16.
Knight, J. (1997). Speech tests in some other languages than English . In M. Martin (Ed.), Speech audiometry (pp. 315-324). San Diego, CA: Singular.
17.
Lyregaard,P. (1997). Towards a theory of speech audiometry tests. In M. Martin (Ed.), Speech audiometry (pp. 34-62). San Diego, CA: Singular.
18.
Martin, F.N., Armstrong, T.W., & Champlain, C.A. (1994). A survey of audio logical practices in the United States. American Journal of Audiology , 3(2), 20-26.
19.
Meyer, T.A., & Bilger, R.C. (1997). Effect of set size and method on speech reception thresholds in noise. Ear and Hearing, 18, 202-209.
20.
Miller, G.A., Heise, G.A., & Lichten, W. (1951). The intelligibility of speech as a function of the context of the test materials. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 41, 329-340.
21.
Punch, J.L., & Howard, M.T. (1985). Spondee recognition threshold as a function of set size. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 50, 120-125.
22.
Ramkissoon, I. (2000). Speech reception thresholds for non-native speakers of English: Digit-pairs vs. spondees. Unpublished master's thesis equivalency project, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
23.
Rudmin, F. (1987). Speech reception threshold for digits. Journal of Auditory Research, 27(1), 15-21.
24.
Scott, D.M. (1998). Multicultural aspects of hearing disorders and audiology. In D.E. Battle (Ed.), Communication disorders in multicultural populations (2nd ed., pp. 335-354). Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann .
25.
Siegenthaler, B.M., & Strand, R. (1964). Audiogram-average methods and SRT scores. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 36, 589-593.
26.
Studebaker, G.A., Ginger, A.G., & William, E.B. (1999). Prediction and statistical evaluation of speech recognition test scores. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 10, 355-370.
