A STUDY OP THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MEASURES OP SPEECH RECEPTION AND MEASURES OP PROFICIENCY IN LANGUAGE DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University ETHEL POLADARE MUSSEN, B.A., A.M. The Ohio State University 1954 Approved by: Adviser Department of Speech ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Acknowledgement Is due Dr. John W. Black who directed and advised the author through the experimental stages and first literary efforts on the dissertation. ii TABLE OP CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE I. INTRODUCTION............ ............... 1 Introduction ....... 1 Purpose of the study .... 1 Hypotheses ............... 2 Definition of terras .............. 3 II. RELATED RESEARCH............ 4 Bell Telephone Laboratories" contributions .. 4 Methods of deducing "ability to hear speech" from audiograms ......................... 6 The development of standardized speech recep­ tion tests...... 10 Correlation of speech reception tests with audiograms ..... 13 The use of speech reception tests in diagnosis and therapy ......... 21 Research on factors affecting -hearing for speech............. 27 Differences between monaural and binaural, thresholds 28 Frequency and intelligibility ............ 28 Intensity and intelligibility ...... 30 Individual differences in audition....... 30 H i CHAPTER PAGE III. PROCEDURE .... 35 Selection of subjects ................... 35 Language measures ...... 35 Equipment .... 40 Hearing measures .... 42 Presentation ..... 44 Scoring of tests ........ 46 •IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ....... 48 Hypothesis I ....... 49 Hypothesis I I ...... 39 Hypothesis I I I ...... ...... •. ........... 62 Hypothesis I V .............. 69 Multiple correlations........ 75 Discussion.......... 79 Recommendations .......... 82 V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ................... 84 Summary ......... 84 Conclusions .................... 85 BIBLIOGRAPHY ...................................... 87 APPENDIX A ................. 93 APPENDIX B ..................................... 95 APPENDIX C ...... 97 APPENDIX D ............... 99 lv CHAPTER PAGE APPENDIX E ......................... 101 APPENDIX F .... 106 APPENDIX G ....... 108 APPENDIX H ..... 112 APPENDIX I ........................... 121 v LIST OP TABLES TABLE PAGE I Summary of Hearing Loss in Coded Scores, Total for Each Decile. Better Single Threshold, ’ EitheoFiEar ........ 52 II Summary of Hearing Loss in Coded Scores, Total for Each. Decile. Better EarThresholds ...... 53 III Summary of Hearing Loss In Coded Scores, Total for Each Decile. Total Thresholds, Both Ears. 54 IV Summary of Coefficients of Correlation Between Tests of Hearing for Speech and Pure-Tone Thresholds ............ 6l V Summary of Coefficients of Correlation Between Tests of Hearing for Speech and Language Ability .... 63 VI Summary of Total Scores Arranged by OSPE Decile ............ 74 VII Estimated Coefficients and Corresponding Standard Deviations and Ratios for Computing Multiple r ? s ...... 77 VIII Number of Male and Female Subjects for Each OSPE Decile...... 94 IX Individual Scores on Language and Hearing for Speech Tests ............... 113 X Subjects? Unconverted Letter-Guessing Scores Total of Ten Phrases Per Subject ...... 116 XI Individual Pure Tone Thresholds in Coded Scores ................... 118 XII Coefficients of Correlation, Means and Standard Deviations used in Multiple Correlations ............. 122 XIII Matrix and Inverse Matrix Used for Multiple Correlation ............. 123 XIV Prediction Equations Using Estimated Raw Score Coefficients ............ 124 vi LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE PAGE 1. Block Diagram of Equipment Used to Deliver Speech Reception Tests .................... ^1 2. Block Diagram of Room Used in Experiment .... *f5 3. Illustration of Method of Recording and Coding Individual Audiograms ............... 50 Composite Audiogram for Each OSPE Decile .... 55 5. Range and Standard Deviation of Intelligence Quotients Computed from Wechsler-Bellevue Vocabulary for Each OSPE Decile ....... 66 6. Range and Standard Deviation of Letter- Guessing Total Z Scores for Each OSPE Decile ....... 68 7. Range and Standard Deviation of Speech Reception Thresholds for Each OSPE Decile ... 71 8. Range and Standard Deviation of PB Scores for Each OSPE Decile ...................... 72 9. Range and Standard Deviation of Multiple- Choice Test Scores for Each OSPE Decile .... 73 vii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION For the past thirty-five years, engineers, psycho­ logists, and clinicians have explored the relationships between perception of pure tones and of spoken signals. Research has indicated that relationships exist, but these are affected by age, intelligence, context, and still other, undefined factors. Ry means of pure tone audiometry, neural, cochlear, or conductive pathology of the ear can be described rather precisely. Audiograms may then be supple­ mented with tests of speech perception for a more complete diagnosis. As in a thorough pure tone audiometric examina­ tion, evaluation of hearing for speech involves several measures. Investigators have found that group performance on one type of test is predictable from performance on the other; individual performance is not. Prediction for the individual is the major clinical problem. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY The primary purpose of this study is to explore the relationship between verbal factors and performance on tests’ of hearing for speech. A prior study demonstrated that each of two speech reception tests could distinguish between sub­ jects with hearing loss and those without, both for grade 1 2 school and for college subjects.1 However, a number of 1 Ethel Foladare, An Experimental Study of a Recorded Multiple-Choice Test of Word Reception. Unpublished M. A. thesis. The Ohio State University, 1952. subjects with hearing loss for pure tones performed better than their normal-hearing peers; the reverse was also noted. In the youngest groups this was shown to correspond with per­ formance on written tests of "verbal intelligence." Similar records were not avaihble for the older students. The ques­ tion arises as to whether these data for college students would reveal the same relationships. HYPOTHESES Four general hypotheses were tested for a normal- hearing population. Stated in the null form, these were: 1. There is no significant relationship between threshold of hearing for the pure tones 500,1000,2000, and 4000 cps and three measures of hearing for speech: a. Speech reception threshold (SRT) in db b. Speech discrimination score (PB) in percent correct c. Response readiness (RR) score in number correct 2. There is no significant relationship among measures of hearing for speech. 3. There is no significant relationship among the measures of language ability. a. OSPE centile rank b. OSPE-RC (reading comprehension) centile rank c. Wechsler-Bellevue vocabulary (in IQ) d. Letter-Guessing scores 4. There is no significant relationship between the language measures and performance on tests of hearing for speech. DEFINITION OF TERMS Pure-tone Threshold is the sound pressure level (re audiometric zero) at which the subject just hears a given frequency. Speech Reception Threshold (SRT) refers to the level at which a subject is able to repeat correctly 50 percent of the spondaic words on the recorded Harvard Auditory List #14. Discrimination Score (or articulation score) is the percent of fifty monosyllabic words repeated correctly (recorded PB list #9). Response Readiness Score is the number of- correct choices made from a total of 76 mono-and dissyllabic words. This is a multiple-choice test. Language Ability is measured here by performance on such verbal tests as vocabulary, reading comprehension, and ability to fill in mutilated words and phrases. CHAPTER II RELATED RESEARCH A. BELL TELEPHONE LABORATORY CONTRIBUTIONS The rapid growth in electronics and the development of the telephone during the early decades of the Twentieth Century turned attention to the physical aspects of speech and hearing. The staff of Bell Telephone Research Labora­ tories related the design of telephone systems to the whole communication process from talker to listener. They inves­ tigated the fundamentals of speech and those variations which affected intelligibility or understanding by the listener. The scope of their investigations extended to normality and abnormality in both speech and hearing. The fundamental results and methods of experimental and mathe­ matical research were summarized once in 1929*^ and again in 1954.2 1 Harvey Fletcher, Speech and Hearing. New York: D. Van Nostrand, 1929. 2 , Speech and Hearing in Communica­ tion. New York: D. Van_Nostrand, 1954. Members of the staff published prolifically during those twenty-five years. New data were presented one year to be interpreted again a decade later in light of subsequent studies with improved techniques. Interests ranged from 5 exploration of normal thresholds^***-*5 through intelligibil- 3 L. J. Sivian and S. D. White, "On Minimum Audible Sound Fields," JASA. 4 (1933), PP. 288-321. **■ H. Fletcher sand W. A. Munson, "Loudness, Its Definition, Measurement, and Calculation," JASA. 5 (1933),p. 82 ff. 5 w. A. Munson, "How Little We Hear," Bell Lab. Record. 21 (1943), P. 341. , . ity^,7 and measurement of the speech s t i m u l u s . ® *9,10 H. Fletcher and J. C. Steinberg, "Articulation Test­ ing Methods," Bell System Technical Journal. 8 (1929), p. 8o6. 7 N. R. French and J. C. Steinberg, "Factors Governing the Intelligibility of Speech