The internal and external consistency of a speech reception threshold test for isiZulu speakers with normal hearing sensitivity.
Seema Panday, Harsha Kathard, Mershen Pillay and 1 others
PMID 30035610WHAT IT FOUND
The new isiZulu speech reception threshold test showed substantial agreement between its two halves and across repeated testing.
Scores remained stable within clinically acceptable limits, supporting further development for use with first-language isiZulu speakers.
Key findings
01Intraclass correlation coefficients for both internal consistency (split-half) and external consistency (test-retest) ranged from 0.69 to 0.79, indicating substantial agreement.
02The coefficient of repeatability ranged from 7.5 to 8.7 dB HL, meaning differences between two measurements of an SRT value can be expected to differ by no more than this amount on 95% of occasions.
03The study concluded that the isiZulu SRT test was reliable, showing high internal and external consistency when used to assess first-language speakers of isiZulu with normal hearing sensitivity.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for SLPs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The sample sizes were small (21 and 23 participants) and non-random (convenience sampling). The study only included participants with normal hearing sensitivity, so reliability in those with hearing loss is unknown. The SRT measurement method was modified from standard protocols (starting level changed to 10 dB SL), which may affect generalisability. The split-half analysis used a simple word-order split (first 14 vs last 14 words), which might not capture all potential variations in item difficulty. The conclusion of reliability depends on accepting a ±5 dB HL variability as clinically acceptable; stricter criteria would change the interpretation.
Declared interests
The text does not explicitly state funding sources or conflicts of interest, but notes ethical clearance from the University of Cape Town.
The easy way to misread this
Do not interpret the reliability findings as evidence that this test is ready for clinical use. The authors explicitly state the test is not yet available for clinical use and requires further validation, particularly with individuals who have hearing loss.