Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
addClaim

Writedown Versus Talkback Scoring and Scoring Bias in Speech Discrimination Testing

Authors: D A, Nelson; J B, Chaiklin;

Writedown Versus Talkback Scoring and Scoring Bias in Speech Discrimination Testing

Abstract

Writedown and talkback responses to 500 Hz low-pass filtered CID W-22 words were obtained from eight listeners, and their talkback responses were scored by eight experienced and eight inexperienced examiners. Four of the experienced and four of the inexperienced examiners monitored at 70 dB SPL; four experienced and four inexperienced examiners monitored at 60 dB SPL. Comparison of talkback discrimination scores (DSs) with corresponding writedown DSs revealed: (1) Inexperienced examiners awarded significantly higher mean talkback DSs than the mean writedown DS; i.e., they showed a mean correct bias. (2) Experienced examiners produced talkback DSs that were not significantly different from the mean writedown DS. (3) Decreasing the monitoring level from 70 to 60 dB SPL increased inexperienced examiners' mean correct bias but the experienced examiners' mean talkback DSs did not change significantly with monitoring level. (4) Inexperienced examiners made more scoring errors than experienced examiners at both monitoring levels. (5) Most examiners iri both groups made both correct bias and incorrect bias scoring errors to produce a net effect on the talkback DS. (6) Distributions of DS differences show individual differences between talkback and writedown DSs as large as +16% and −20% and frequent differences of ±6%, even when the mean DS difference between scoring methods was negligible.

Related Organizations
Keywords

Adult, Male, Discrimination, Psychological, Adolescent, Tape Recording, Methods, Humans, Speech, Female

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    15
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Top 10%
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
15
Average
Top 10%
Average
Upload OA version
Are you the author of this publication? Upload your Open Access version to Zenodo!
It’s fast and easy, just two clicks!