Advertisement

HNO

pp 1–7 | Cite as

The new Mainz speech test for children 3–7 years old (MATCH)

Design, standardization, and validation
  • V. Schirkonyer
  • A. Keilmann
  • C. Harmuth
  • B. Wachtlin
  • T. Rader
  • A. BohnertEmail author
Original articles
  • 9 Downloads

Abstract

Objective

To develop a new, German, age-appropriate speech audiometry test for children, by using 26 nouns that are most likely part of the lexicon of 2-year-olds. The test is a picture-pointing task with a four-option non-forced choice method.

Materials and methods

In total, 179 children aged 2;11 to 6;9 y were included for standardizing and validating the speech test. Of these, 51 had a hearing impairment in both ears ranging up to 90 dB hearing level (HL). The normal-hearing collective was divided into three groups according to age. For each group, the speech reception threshold (SRT) and the slope of the psychometric function of intelligibility were determined. For validation, the test-retest reliability was measured in 85 ears, and the correlation between the pure tone average (PTA) at 0.5, 1, 2, and 4 kHz and the SRT was measured in 86 ears.

Results

The sound spectrum of the 26 items was in good accordance with the international long-term speech spectrum, and the relative frequency of phonemes matched the distribution of the 50 more frequent German phonemes. The SRTs ranged from 24.6 ± 0.6 dB sound pressure level (SPL) for the oldest group (> 5.5 y) to 29.3 ± 1.3 dB SPL for the youngest group (< 4.25 y). The slopes of the psychometric function ranged from 4.3 ± 0.5%/dB for the oldest group to 2.6 ± 0.4%/dB for the youngest. The test and retest showed good correlation (r  = 0.89, p < 0.0001) as did the PTA and SRT (r = 0.84, p < 0.0001).

Conclusion

The newly developed Mainz speech-test effectively measures age-related speech perception from the age of three years.

Keywords

Speech test Children MATCH German Pediatric audiology 

Der neue Mainzer Sprachtest für Kinder 3–7 Jahre (MATCH)

Design, Normierung und Validierung

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors express their appreciation to the participants who graciously gave their time and effort to participate in this study.

Funding

Part of this study was funded by the German GEERS foundation.

Compliance with ethical guidelines

Conflict of interest

A. Bohnert, A. Keilmann, C. Harmuth, B. Wachtlin, and T. Rader declare that they have no conflict of interest. V. Schirkonyer is now a member of PATH MEDICAL GmbH, Germering, Germany. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of the paper.

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the Ethical Standards of the Institutional or National Research Committee guidelines and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. This study was approved by the local Ethics Committee Landesärztekammer Rheinland-Pfalz (approval number 837.021.09 (6526)) and subjects included in the study or their guardians agreed to be participants and gave written informed consent.

The supplement containing this article is not sponsored by industry.

Literatur

  1. 1.
    American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (1988) Determining threshold level for speech [Guidelines]. Asha.  https://doi.org/10.1044/policy.GL1988-00008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Biesalski P, Leitner H, Leitner E, Gangel D (1974) Der Mainzer Kindersprachtest. Sprachaudiometrie im Vorschulalter. HNO 22(5):160–161PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Byrne D, Dillon H, Tran K, Arlinger S, Wilbraham K, Cox R, Hagerman B, Hetu R, Kei J, Lui C, Kiessling J, Kotby MN, Nasser NHA, El Kholy WAH, Nakanishi Y, Oyer H, Powell R, Stephens D, Meredith R, Sirimanna T, Tavartkiladze G, Frolenkov GI, Westerman S, Ludvigsen C (1994) An international comparison of long‐term average speech spectra. J Acoust Soc Am 96(4):2108–2120.  https://doi.org/10.1121/1.410152 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chilla R, Gabriel P, Kozielski P, Bänsch D, Kabas M (1976) Der Göttinger Kindersprachverständnistest. I. Sprachaudiometrie des „Kindergarten“- und retardierten Kindes mit einem Einsilber-Bildtest. HNO 24(10):342–346PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Coninx F (2005) Konstruktion und Normierung des Adaptiven Auditiven Sprach-Test (AAST). 22. Wissenschaftliche Jahrestagung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Phoniatrie und Pädaudiologie.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Coninx F (2006) Entwicklung und Erprobung des Adaptiven Auditiven SprachTests. 9. DGA Jahrestagung 2006.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    DIN (1995) Tonträger mit Sprache für Gehörprüfung – Teil 1: Tonträger mit Wörtern nach DIN 45621‑1 (Aufnahme 1969) (DIN 45626-1:1995-08)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    DIN (2012) Akustik – Audiometrische Prüfverfahren – Teil 3: Sprachaudiometrie (DIN EN ISO 8253-3:2012-08). Beuth, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hahlbrock K‑H (1953) Über Sprachaudiometrie und neue Wörterteste. Arch Ohren Nasen Kehlkopfheilkd 162(5):394–431.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02105664 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    International Bureau for Audiophonology (1997) Audiometric classification of hearing impairments. BIAP recommendation 02/1Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kaernbach C (1991) Simple adaptive testing with the weighted up-down method. Percept Psychophys 49:227–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Neumann K, Baumeister N, Baumann U, Sick U, Euler HA, Weissgerber T (2012) Speech audiometry in quiet with the Oldenburg Sentence Test for Children. Int J Audiol 51(3):157–163.  https://doi.org/10.3109/14992027.2011.633935 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schiel F (2010) BAstat: new statistical resources at the Bavarian archive for speech signals. Proceedings of Language Resources & Evaluation Conference (LREC), Valletta, Malta, p 277Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Suchodoletz WV, Sachse S (2012) Früherkennung von Sprachentwicklungsstörungen. Der SBE-2-KT und SBE-3-KT für zwei- bzw. dreijährige Kinder, 1 edn. Kohlhammer, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Völter C, Shehata-Dieler W, Baumann R, Helms J (2005) Entwicklung eines neuen Kindersprachtests und Erprobung an CI-Kindern. Laryngorhinootologie 84(10):738–743CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wagener K, Kollmeier B (2005) Evaluation des Oldenburger Satztests mit Kindern und Oldenburger Kinder-Satztest. Z Audiol 44(3):134–143Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wagener K, Brand T, Kollmeier B (2006) Evaluation des Oldenburger Kinder-Reimtests in Ruhe und im Störgeräusch. HNO 54:171–178.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00106-005-1304-4 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Weissgerber T, Baumann U, Brand T, Neumann K (2012) German Oldenburg sentence test for children: a useful speech audiometry tool for hearing-impaired children at kindergarten and school age. Folia Phoniatr Logop 64:227–233.  https://doi.org/10.1159/000342414 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Medizin Verlag GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • V. Schirkonyer
    • 1
  • A. Keilmann
    • 2
  • C. Harmuth
    • 3
  • B. Wachtlin
    • 4
  • T. Rader
    • 5
  • A. Bohnert
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.Technical University of Munich (TUM)MunichGermany
  2. 2.Voice Care CenterBad RappenauGermany
  3. 3.Department of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Division of Communication DisordersUniversity Hospital Mainz (UM JGU)MainzGermany
  4. 4.Faculty of Social Work and HealthHAWKHildesheim, Holzminden, GöttingenGermany
  5. 5.Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Section of AudiologyUniversity Hospital Munich (LMU)MunichGermany

Personalised recommendations