Validation of list equivalency for Mandarin speech materials to use with cochlear implant listeners.
Yongxin Li, Shuncheng Wang, Qiaodang Su and 2 others
PMID 27414242WHAT IT FOUND
Mandarin CI test lists previously deemed equivalent for normal-hearing simulations are not equivalent for real implant users.
Excluding specific difficult lists restores equivalency. Monosyllable scores do not predict sentence or disyllable performance, so all three must be tested.
Key findings
01List equivalency established for normal-hearing listeners or CI simulations does not hold for real cochlear implant users.
02Removing specific lists (1 and 3 for sentences, 2 and 3 for disyllables, 1 for monosyllables) results in statistically equivalent performance across the remaining lists.
03Monosyllable recognition scores do not correlate with sentence or disyllable scores, indicating they measure different abilities and should always be tested.
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 study was conducted only in quiet; list equivalency may differ in noise. The pediatric participants were older (10-20 years), so results may not apply to younger children. Only a small subset of participants completed all three tests, limiting the analysis of cross-test correlations. Validation was performed at a single clinic site, so generalizability to other populations is unknown.
The easy way to misread this
Do not use the original full set of 10 lists for clinical assessment without excluding the specific lists identified as non-equivalent. Do not assume that a patient's score on a sentence test predicts their ability to recognize monosyllables, as the study found no correlation between these measures.