Recorded Word Recognition Testing Is Worth the Time

The goal of this study was to provide evidence of the inherent variability associated with monitored live voice (MLV) presentation methods and encourage audiologists to more closely follow best practice of using recorded stimuli. To accomplish the goal, administration times for word recognition testing were compared between MLV and MP3 recorded stimuli presented directly from an audiometer (computer assisted, CA). Furthermore, the variability of administration time across testers was evaluated.

Fifty-word NU-6 lists were presented via MLV and CA to listeners with typical hearing (TH; defined as a four-frequency [500, 1000, 2000, and 4000 Hz] pure-tone average [PTA] of 20 dB HL or better) and hearing loss (HL; defined as a four-frequency PTA poorer than 20 dB HL). Audiologists and doctor of audiology students administered the word lists. Administration times were compared between the two presentation methods (MLV and CA).

MLV administration time was significantly shorter than CA presentation time for both the TH and HL groups. There was also a significant difference in word recognition scores (WRS) between the TH and HL groups only when using the CA method. Most notably, there was significantly more variability in the administration time for MLV presentation across testers compared to the CA method. Data were compared to Mendel and Owen (2011), and MLV administration time was found to be significantly shorter than CA and compact disk (CD) administration time.

Despite the shorter average administration time for MLV presentation compared to CA or CD, the significant variability in administration time among individual testers limits the clinical value of the test results. In addition, WRS for those with hearing loss were significantly poorer than those with TH when using CA but not for MLV, indicating that MLV is not sensitive to the presence of sensorineural hearing loss. Thus, using recorded word recognition is strongly recommended.