Speech-in-Noise Assessment in the Routine Audiologic Test Battery: Relationship to Perceived Auditory Disability

Abstract

Objectives: Self-assessment of perceived communication difficulty has been used in clinical and research practices for decades. Such questionnaires routinely assess the perceived ability of an individual to understand speech, particularly in background noise. Despite the emphasis on perceived performance in noise, speech recognition in routine audiologic practice is measured by word recognition in quiet (WRQ). Moreover, surprisingly little data exist that compare speech understanding in noise (SIN) abilities to perceived communication difficulty. Here, we address these issues by examining audiometric thresholds, WRQ scores, QuickSIN signal to noise ratio (SNR) loss, and perceived auditory disability as measured by the five questions on the Speech Spatial Questionnaire-12 (SSQ12) devoted to speech understanding (SSQ12-Speech5). Design: We examined data from 1633 patients who underwent audiometric assessment at the Stanford Ear Institute. All individuals completed the SSQ12 questionnaire, pure-tone audiometry, and speech assessment consisting of ear-specific WRQ, and ear-specific QuickSIN. Only individuals with hearing threshold asymmetries ≤10 dB HL in their high-frequency pure-tone average (HFPTA) were included. Our primary objectives were to (1) examine the relationship between audiometric variables and the SSQ12-Speech5 scores, (2) determine the amount of variance in the SSQ12-Speech5 scores which could be predicted from audiometric variables, and (3) predict which patients were likely to report greater perceived auditory disability according to the SSQ12-Speech5. Results: Performance on the SSQ12-Speech5 indicated greater perceived auditory disability with more severe degrees of hearing loss and greater QuickSIN SNR loss. Degree of hearing loss and QuickSIN SNR loss were found to account for modest but significant variance in SSQ12-Speech5 scores after accounting for age. In contrast, WRQ scores did not significantly contribute to the predictive power of the model. Degree of hearing loss and QuickSIN SNR loss were also found to have moderate diagnostic accuracy for determining which patients were likely to report SSQ12-Speech5 scores indicating greater perceived auditory disability. Conclusions: Taken together, these data indicate that audiometric factors including degree of hearing loss (i.e., HFPTA) and QuickSIN SNR loss are predictive of SSQ12-Speech5 scores, though notable variance remains unaccounted for after considering these factors. HFPTA and QuickSIN SNR loss—but not WRQ scores—accounted for a significant amount of variance in SSQ12-Speech5 scores and were largely effective at predicting which patients are likely to report greater perceived auditory disability on the SSQ12-Speech5. This provides further evidence for the notion that speech-in-noise measures have greater clinical utility than WRQ in most instances as they relate more closely to measures of perceived auditory disability.