Edgerton B J
J Aud Res. 1978 Jul;18(3):165-8.
Air-bone gaps derived from speech and from pure-tone testing were compared for an unselected clinic sample of 67 hearing-impaired Ss (80 ears). A moderately high Pearson r was found between the air-bone gap for speech vs for a pure-tone average (of the order of .80), but while the pure-tone air-bone gap predicted all but 5% of the cases of (confirmed) conductive losses, the speech air-bone gap prediction missed over 25%. When audiograms were grouped according to type of configuration, the flat and the high-frequency sloping types exhibited the largest discrepancies between air-bone gaps by speech vs pure tones; when the audiograms were grouped by degree of impairment, those with moderate-to-severe losses exhibited the largest discrepancies. Until a larger body of data is amassed, it was recommended that the air-bone gap for speech be used in conjunction with, not in place of, other audiometric tests.
对67名听力受损受试者(80只耳朵)的未筛选临床样本,比较了言语测听和纯音测试得出的气骨导差。言语气骨导差与纯音平均气骨导差之间发现了中等偏高的皮尔逊相关系数r(约为0.80),但是,虽然纯音气骨导差能预测除5%以外的所有(确诊的)传导性听力损失病例,但言语气骨导差预测失误超过25%。当根据听力图形态类型分组时,平坦型和高频斜坡型在言语与纯音气骨导差之间表现出最大差异;当根据听力损失程度分组时,中度至重度听力损失者表现出最大差异。在积累更多数据之前,建议将言语气骨导差与其他听力测试结合使用,而不是取而代之。