Shi Lu-Feng
Long Island University–Brooklyn Campus, NY, USA.
Am J Audiol. 2013 Jun;22(1):40-52. doi: 10.1044/1059-0889(2012/12-0029).
The current study attempted to validate that English proficiency self-ratings predict bilinguals’ recognition of English words as reported in Shi (2011) and to explore whether relative proficiency ratings (English vs. first language) improve prediction.
One hundred and twenty-four participants in Shi (2011) and an additional set of 145 participants were included (Groups 1 and 2, respectively) in this study. All listeners rated their proficiency in listening, speaking, and reading (English and first language) on an 11-point scale and listened to a list of words from the Northwestern University Auditory Tests No. 6 (Tillman & Carhart, 1966) at 45 dB HL in quiet.
English proficiency ratings by Group 2 yielded sensitivity/specificity values comparable to those of Group 1 (Shi, 2011) in predicting word recognition. A cutoff of 8 or 9 in minimum English proficiency rating across listening, speaking, and reading resulted in the best combination of prediction sensitivity/specificity. When relative proficiency was used, prediction of Group 1 performance significantly improved as compared to English proficiency. Improvement was slight for Group 2, mainly due to low specificity.
Self-rated English proficiency provides clinically acceptable sensitivity/specificity values as a predictor of bilinguals’ English word recognition. Relative proficiency has the potential to further improve predictive power, but the size of improvement depends on the characteristics of the test population.
本研究试图验证如Shi（2011）所报道的，英语水平自评能否预测双语者对英语单词的识别，并探讨相对水平评级（英语与母语相比）是否能提高预测能力。
本研究纳入了Shi（2011）中的124名参与者以及另外145名参与者（分别为第1组和第2组）。所有受试者用11分制对其听力、口语和阅读能力（英语和母语）进行评级，并在安静环境中以45 dB HL的强度聆听西北大学听觉测试第6号（Tillman & Carhart，1966）中的单词列表。
在预测单词识别方面，第2组的英语水平评级所产生的敏感度/特异度值与第1组（Shi，2011）相当。听力、口语和阅读的最低英语水平评级为8或9时，预测敏感度/特异度的组合最佳。使用相对水平时，与英语水平相比，第1组表现的预测显著改善。第2组的改善较小，主要是由于特异度较低。
自我评定的英语水平作为双语者英语单词识别的预测指标，具有临床上可接受的敏感度/特异度值。相对水平有进一步提高预测能力的潜力，但提高的幅度取决于受试人群的特征。
