Writedown Versus Talkback Scoring and Scoring Bias in Speech Discrimination Testing 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 ... Research Article
Research Article  |   September 01, 1970
Writedown Versus Talkback Scoring and Scoring Bias in Speech Discrimination Testing
 
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • David A. Nelson
    University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota
  • Joseph B. Chaiklin
    University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota
Article Information
Research Articles
Research Article   |   September 01, 1970
Writedown Versus Talkback Scoring and Scoring Bias in Speech Discrimination Testing
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, September 1970, Vol. 13, 645-654. doi:10.1044/jshr.1303.645
History: Received April 18, 1969
 
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, September 1970, Vol. 13, 645-654. doi:10.1044/jshr.1303.645
History: Received April 18, 1969

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.

Order a Subscription
Pay Per View
Entire Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research content & archive
24-hour access
This Article
24-hour access