Comparison of Speech Audiometry Using KS Word List and Hahm's List in Hearing Impaired Adults

Abstract

Received July 1, 2014 Revised August 11, 2014 Accepted August 19, 2014 Address for correspondence Hyung-Jong Kim, MD, PhD Department of Otolaryngology, Hallym University Sacred Heart Hospital, 22 Gwanpyeong-ro 170beon-gil, Dongan-gu, Anyang 431-796, Korea Tel +82-31-380-3842 Fax +82-31-386-3860 E-mail hjk1000@hallym.ac.kr * Both contributed equally on this work. Background and ObjectivesZZThe purpose of this study was to compare speech audiometry test results of the conventional Hahm’s list with those of Korean standard word lists for adults (KS-WL-A) using both live voice and compact disc (CD) speech presentation modes. Subjects and MethodZZEighty patients with sensorineural hearing loss and 23 control subjects with normal hearing participated in the study. Each hearing loss group comprised 20 subjects (mild, moderate, moderately severe, and severe hearing loss groups). Speech audiometry was performed to measure the speech recognition threshold (SRT) and word recognition score. KSWL-A was presented either through a live voice mode or recorded CD materials. Test words from Hahm’s list were presented using the live voice mode only. Pure tone audiometry was also conducted for all subjects. ResultsZZDifferences between the SRT and pure tone average were within 6 dB in all subgroups in all three stimulation methods, indicating high reliability of the SRT in both the conventional and Korean standard methods. The moderate, moderately severe, and severe hearing loss groups showed lower word recognition scores in the CD mode with KS-WL-A than with the two live voice modes. ConclusionZZBoth the live voice mode and CD mode showed reliable speech audiometry test results in normal and hearing-impaired subjects. Although the CD mode is recommended to standardize test methods and reduce test errors, the live voice mode might be more effective for patients with moderate to severe hearing loss. Korean J Otorhinolaryngol-Head Neck Surg 2015;58(2):88-94