Program in Clinical and Translational Science, University of Vermont, Burlington.
Robert Larner, MD College of Medicine, University of Vermont, Burlington.
J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2019 Jan 30;62(1):169-176. doi: 10.1044/2018_JSLHR-H-17-0158.
Purpose The objective of the study was to compare test-retest reliability of three dichotic listening tests: SCAN-3 Competing Words Test (Words; Keith, 2009a , 2009b ), Double Dichotic Digits Test (Digits; Musiek, 1983a ), and Bergen Dichotic Listening Test With Consonant-Vowel Syllables (Syllables; Hugdahl & Hammar, 1997 ). Method Sixty English-speaking children, 7-14 years old with normal hearing, had a single study visit during which each test was administered twice. Changes on retest were summarized by within-subject standard deviation ( S ), compared among tests, and compared with binomial model predictions. Correlates of variance were explored. Results Scores based on 40 items were more precise ( S = 5%) than those based on 20-30 items ( S = 6%-8%). All 3 tests had reliability within bounds predicted by binomial model. Changes on retest for Words and Digits Test were weakly associated with age, but this is confounded by the trend for older children to have higher Words and Digits scores. Conclusions Digits Right, Digits Left, and Words Total scores-each based on 40 items-had the best reliability among the clinically used scores. Scores based on fewer items were less precise. Poor precision may contribute to misdiagnosis in clinic and to nondifferential misclassification in research. More precise estimates of dichotic listening ability require longer tests.
目的 本研究的目的是比较三种双耳分听测试的重测信度：SCAN-3 竞争词测试（Words；Keith，2009a，2009b）、双耳分听数字测试（Digits；Musiek，1983a）和 Bergen 辅音-元音音节双耳分听测试（Syllables；Hugdahl & Hammar，1997）。 方法 60 名英语为母语、年龄在 7-14 岁之间、听力正常的儿童在单次研究访问中接受了两次测试。通过个体内标准差（S）总结重测变化，并在测试之间进行比较，并与二项式模型预测进行比较。还探索了方差的相关因素。 结果 基于 40 个项目的分数比基于 20-30 个项目的分数更精确（S=5%）。所有 3 项测试的重测信度均在二项式模型预测的范围内。Words 和 Digits Test 的重测变化与年龄弱相关，但这与年龄较大的儿童具有较高的 Words 和 Digits 分数的趋势相混淆。 结论 在临床使用的分数中，Digits Right、Digits Left 和 Words 总分数——每个分数基于 40 个项目——具有最佳的可靠性。基于较少项目的分数不太精确。精度差可能导致临床误诊和研究中无差异的错误分类。更精确的双耳分听能力估计需要更长的测试。
