J Am Acad Audiol 8 : 163-172 (1997)

Performance Norms for the VA Compact Disc

Versions of CID W-22 (Hirsh) and
PB-50 (Rush Hughes) Word Lists
Anastasia L. Heckendorf*
Terry L. Wileyt
Richard H . Wilson*

Abstract
The purpose of this study was to establish normative articulation functions for the Hirsh
recordings of the CID W-22 word lists and the Rush Hughes recordings of the PB-50 word
lists as recorded on the VA compact disc. Twenty-four young adults with normal hearing lis-
tened to both sets of materials presented in quiet at 12 levels (0-56 dB HL). Presentation
levels on average needed to be 10 dB higher for the PB-50 word lists to obtain word recog-
nition performance scores equal to those for the W-22s. Maximum word recognition scores
of 95 to 100 percent were obtained for the W-22s at lower presentation levels (>40 dB HL),
compared to 80 to 90 percent for the PB-50s at the maximum presentation level (56 dB HL).
Mean slopes for the W-22 and PB-50 functions were 4.1 percent/dB and 1 .9 percent/dB,
respectively . Test-retest reliability was judged to be clinically appropriate for both sets of
materials. Item analyses revealed a substantially skewed distribution toward easy items for
the W-22 word lists compared to a more balanced distribution of item difficulty for the PB-50
lists. List equivalency was also judged to be clinically appropriate for the PB-50 word lists.

Key Words : Articulation functions, compact disc, speech audiometry, word recognition

Abbreviations : ANSI = American National Standards Institute, CD = compact disc,

CNC = consonant- n ucleus-co nsonant

n 1991, the Department of Veterans Affairs
produced a compact disc (CD) (Speech Recog-
Inition and Identification Materials, Disc 1.1)
that contained several sets of word recognition
materials, including (1) a male recording of the
Maryland consonant-nucleus-consonant (CNC)
lists, (2) a female recording of the CID W-1
spondaic words and the Northwestern Univer-
sity Auditory Test No . 6 (NU-6), (3) the Rush
Hughes recording of the PB-50 lists, and (4) the
Hirsh recordings of the CID W-22 monosyllables
(Wilson, 1993). Normative data on the CD ver-
sion of the W-1 lists (Cambron et al, 1991) and
the NU-6 lists (Wilson et al, 1990) are available .
Normative data on the W-22 and PB-50 mate-
rials as recorded on the CD, however, are not
available.
*CESA 5-Audiology, Portage, Wisconsin ; tDepart-
ment of Communicative Disorders, University of Wisconsin,
Madison, Wisconsin ; tVA Medical Center-Audiology, Moun-
tain Home, Tennessee
Despite a paucity of data on the character-
istics of the Rush Hughes recordings of the PB-
50 lists, available evidence indicates that the
PB-50 materials are more sensitive than the
W-22 lists to individual differences in word
recognition performance for listeners with nor-
mal hearing and listeners with hearing impair-
ment (Davis, 1948, 1978 ; Thurlow et al, 1948,
1949 ; Eldert and Davis, 1951 ; Hirsh et al, 1952 ;
Silverman and Hirsh, 1955 ; Goldstein et al,
1956 ; Goetzinger et al, 1961 ; Carhart, 1965 ;
Lovrinic et al, 1968 ; Goetzinger, 1972). An issue
of primary interest in the present study was
whether changes associated with the produc-
tion of the CD recordings altered the perfor-
mance characteristics of either the W-22 or the
PB-50 material . Also, although several reports
discuss differences in word recognition perfor-
mance for the W-22 and PB-50 lists (Hirsh et al,
1952 ; Goetzinger and Rousey, 1959 ; Goetzinger
et al, 1961 ; Carhart, 1965, 1970 ; Goetzinger,
1972 ; Davis, 1978), a direct performance com-
parison of the two tests on the same group of sub-

163
Journal of the American Academy of Audiology/Volume 8, Number 3, June 1997

jects is lacking. Thus, the main purpose of the 11) or the W-22 word lists (Lists 1, 2, 3, 4) were
current investigation was to provide normative presented monaurally in quiet at 12 levels (0, 4,
word recognition data on the W-22 (Hirsh) and 8, 12, 16, 20, 24, 28, 32, 40, 48, 56 dB HL). The
PB-50 (Rush Hughes) word lists as recorded on remaining set of lists was presented under the
the VA CD . Secondarily, test-retest measures same conditions during the second session. Dur-
and item analyses were examined for the two ing the third session, performed within 1 week
sets of materials. Finally, list equivalency was of initial testing, each subject was retested with
evaluated for the PB-50 word lists. three lists from each set of materials at levels
of 8, 20, and 32 dB HL to provide data for
METHOD test-retest reliability. All four PB-50 lists also
were presented during the final third session at
Subjects 56 dB HL for evaluation of list equivalency.
The order of list presentation was random-
The volunteer subject group consisted of 12 ized with restrictions across subjects and levels
men and 12 women (N = 24) 19 to 34 years so that the same word list was never presented
(mean = 26 years) of age . All subjects had (1) a at consecutive levels . An ascending order of lev-
negative history of any recent otic disorder and els was used to minimize any possible learning
normal otoscopic findings (ASHA, 1990), (2) nor- effects. For all word recognition testing, sub-
mal middle ear function defined according to jects wrote their responses. Correctness was
ASHA (1990) guidelines, (3) an ipsilateral based on phonetic or homonym spelling with
acoustic reflex for a 1000-Hz tonal activator omissions of final consonants, plurals, or tense
<95 dB HL, and (4) air-conduction thresholds markers judged as incorrect.
of 0 to 10 dB HL (ANSI, 1989) at octave inter-
vals from 250 to 8000 Hz . For each subject, the RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
ear with the lower mean threshold at 1000,
2000, and 4000 Hz served as the test ear; an Articulation Functions
equal number of right and left ears were
represented. Table 1 lists and Figure 1 illustrates mean
word recognition scores in percent correct
Instrumentation and Calibration obtained for the W-22 and PB-50 materials from
the 24 listeners . The lines through the data
Tympanograms and acoustic reflexes were points are the best-fit, second-degree polyno-
obtained using an acoustic admittance screen- mials. Except for the two lowest presentation
ing instrument (Grason-Stadler, Model GSI 27A) levels, recognition performance on the W-22s
that met ANSI S3 .39-1987 specifications. Pure- exceeded performance on the P13-50s . As
tone air-conduction audiometry was performed expected from the binomial model (Thornton
with a console audiometer (Grason-Stadler,
Model GSI 16) in accordance with ANSI S3 .6-
1989 . Testing was performed with the subject Table 1 Mean Word Recognition Scores and
seated in a sound room (Industrial Acoustics Standard Deviations (Both in Percent Correct)
Company, 1200 Series). The test signals were by Presentation Level (dB HL) for the W-22 and
delivered to an earphone (TDH 50-P) mounted the PB-50 Materials from 24 Listeners with
in a supra-aural cushion (Telephonics P/N Normal Hearing
5100017-1) . Word recognition stimuli from
Speech Recognition and Identification Materials, Level (dB HL) W-22 PB-50
Disc 1 .1 were directed from a CD player (Sony,
0 0 .8 (1 .7) 6 .3 (5 .6)
Model 497) to a single channel of the audiome- 4 12 .4 (12 .5) 13 .4 (7 .3)
ter. The speech channel of the audiometer was 8 25 .1 (14 .3) 24 .1 (9 .6)
calibrated to 19 .7 dB SPL for a 1000-Hz tone . 12 45 .9 (16 .6) 33 .8 (12 .7)
16 61,7 (12 .4) 46 .2 (10 .0)
20 73 .3 (11 .1) 53 .0 (12 .0)
Procedures
24 80 .5 (9.4) 59 .8 (9 .2)
28 86 .7 (7 .3) 64 .8 (10 .5)
Each subject participated in three 60- to 32 91 .8 (4.7) 71 .1 (8 .3)
90-minute sessions, with a 10-minute break in 40 95 .2 (3 .9) 79 .8 (8 .8)
the middle of each session. During the first ses- 48 96 .7 (2 .3) 84 .7 (6 .3)
56 98 .2 (1 .8) 86 .3 (6 .8)
sion, either the PB-50 word lists (Lists 8, 9, 10,

164

100
80
60
40
20
0 est presentation levels for the majority of
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
PRESENTATION LEVEL (dB HL)
Figure 1 Articulation functions for the W-22 (circles)
and PB-50 (squares) lists recorded on the VA CD . The
mean correct recognition (%) is plotted as a function of
the presentation level (dB HL). The lines connecting the
data points are the best-fit, second-degree polynomials
(W-22-y = -2 .2045 + 4.5885x - 0.051125x2, R2 = 0.99;
P13-50-y = 3.9302 = 2.9315x - 0.026023x2, R2 = 0.99) .
and Raffm, 1978), variability was greatest at the
middle presentation levels (see Table 1) . Ceiling
effects were observed for the W-22s with many
100 percent scores obtained at the highest lev-
els. No 100 percent scores were obtained on the
PB-50s .
The differences between functions calcu-
lated from the polynomial equations progressed
from 0.7 dB at 20 percent, to 5.5 dB at 50 per-
cent, to 15 .8 dB at 80 percent. Data for the PB-
50s were at higher levels for each percentage .
The slopes of the mean functions calculated
from the same equations at the 20 percent and
80 percent correct points were 3 .1 percent/dB for
the W-22s and 1.7 percent/dB for the PB-50s . In
addition to the slopes of the mean functions,
the mean slopes of the individual functions were
calculated. For each individual set of data, slopes
of the articulation functions were estimated at
the presentation levels that most closely approx-
imated word recognition scores of 20 percent
and 80 percent correct. The slopes of the func-
tions for the individual subjects ranged from
2 .8 percent/dB to 5 .7 percent/dB (W-22s) and
from 1.2 percent/dB to 2.8 percent/dB (PB-50s) .
The mean slope of the individual functions for
the W-22s was 4.1 percent/dB (-}0 .9%/dB),
whereas the mean slope of the individual func-
tions for the PB-50s was 1 .9 percent/dB
Norms for W-22 and PB-50s on CD/Heckendorf et al
(±0.4%/dB). The mean slopes were significantly
different (F[1 .23] = 181 .32; p < .05) .
The results of the current investigation sug-
gested that the PB-50 word lists recorded by
Rush Hughes (recordings available on CD) con-
tinued to be more sensitive to individual differ-
ences in word recognition abilities than the CID
W-22 recordings, at least for listeners with nor-
mal hearing. The PB-50 lists did not result in
articulation functions that demonstrated pro-
nounced plateau regions, as observed for the
W-22 functions. Rather, the function for the PB-
50s continued to rise gradually even at the high-
subjects . The steeper slope of the W-22 function
(4 .1%/dB) indicated that small increases in pre-
sentation level resulted in larger changes in
word recognition performance relative to the
PB-50s . A single increase in presentation level
of 4 to 5 dB corresponded to a 16 to 20 percent
improvement in W-22 word recognition perfor-
mance. In contrast, the shallower slope (1 .9%/dB)
associated with the PB-50 function indicated
that considerably smaller changes in performance
occurred with increments in presentation level.
An increase of 4 to 5 dB corresponded to only an
8 to 10 percent improvement in word recognition
scores . The PB-50 1ists more precisely differen-
tiated individual word recognition abilities across
levels than did the W-22 lists.
Original vs Current Functions
For the past 40 years, the original articu-
lation function for the W-22s (Hirsh et al, 1952)
has been a benchmark against which practi-
cally all word recognition materials have been
compared. The slope of the original W-22 func-
tion was about 4 percent/dB with the 50 percent
point at 24 dB SPL. Based on this original func-
tion, the W-22s are always cited as being easier
than any other comparable monosyllabic word
recognition material . Until the current study,
however, the original articulation function for the
Hirsh version of the W-22s has not been repli-
cated. Figure 2 illustrates the articulation func-
tions for the original data (filled circles) and for
the current data (open circles) . The original W-
22 data were extracted from Hirsh et al (Fig . 1;
1952) by adding 20 dB to sound pressure level
to determine the corresponding presentation
level (dB HL). For reference purposes, the
derived data points from Hirsh et al are listed
in Table 2 . To simplify computational compar-
isons, the data were then fit with a second-
degree polynomial . The two W-22 functions are
165
Journal of the American Academy of Audiology/ Volume 8, Number 3, June 1997

Table 2 Levels (dB HL) Corresponding to The reasons for the differences between the
Percent Correct Performance Extracted from functions are not entirely clear. The same record-
Second-Degree Polynomial Equations Applied ings of the materials by the same speaker (Hirsh)
to Data Obtained from the Original W-22 and were evaluated, so there was no speaker differ-
PB-50 Recordings Reported by Hirsh et al ence . Calibration, however, may have been a
(1952) and Davis (1948) and the Current
major contributor to the observed differences
Investigation (CD 95) for the CD Version of
for the two functions. A difference between the
These Same Tests
levels of the calibration tone and W-22 materi-
als on the Technisonic records has been appar-
Percent W- 22 PB- 50
Correct Hirsh (1952) CD 95 Davis (1948) CD 95 ent for many years (Gengel and Kupperman,
1980). The Technisonic records were derived
80 12 .8 24 .8 22 .6 40 .5 directly from the magnetic tapes from which
70 9 .3 20 .4 18 .9 31 .1 the original W-22 function in Figure 2 was gen-
60 6 .5 16 .6 15 .8 24 .4
erated . To verify the reported difference between
50 4 .0 13 .4 13 .0 18 .9
40 1 .8 10 .4 10 .3 14 .0 the levels of the calibration tone and W-22 mate-
30 -0 .2 7 .7 7 .7 9 .7 rials on the Technisonic records, the levels on the
20 -2 .2 5 .1 5 .1 5 .8 1969 records were examined using a computer
Mean slope 4 .0%/dB 3 .1%/dB 3 .4%/dB 1 .7%/dB and vu meter arrangement. The calibration tone
and stimulus materials were reproduced (Pana-
sonic, Model SG-HM09) with a 1-mil stylus
displaced about 10 dB with the original function (Lilly and Franzen, 1968) and digitized with a
requiring less SPLs for comparable recognition 16-bit analog-to-digital converter (Antex, Model
performance. The differences between the W-22 SX-10) at 20,000 samples/sec. Subsequently,
functions averaged 9.5 dB and ranged from 7.3 each carrier phrase and target word set were
dB at 20 percent correct, to 9.4 dB at 50 percent edited into individual files. Routines with a
correct, to 12 .0 dB at 80 percent correct. The waveform editor were then used to block the
slopes derived from the 20 to 80 percent points carrier phrase and repetitively reproduce it with
on the polynomials fit to the mean W-22 func- the output of the digital-to-analog converter
tions were 4 percent/dB (Hirsh et al, 1952) and monitored on a vu meter (Tascam, Model MU-
3.1 percent/dB (current study) . 40). After monitoring the stimulus several times
on the vu meter, the peak vu reading could be
estimated within ± 0.5 dB . Here and through-
out, 1 vu is equal to 1 dB for a sinusoid (IEEE,
100 1992, p. 1475). A similar process was used with
the target words except that the last word of the
80 carrier phrase ("say") was included in the block.
Because the calibration tone was about 8 dB
below the vu level of the carrier phrase peaks,
60
8 dB were added digitally to the level of the dig-
itized calibration tone . In this manner, all read-
40 ings were accomplished around 0 vu (i .e ., the
lower end of the vu scale was not used).
20 The level measurements revealed that the
1000-Hz calibration tones on the Technisonic
discs were on average 10 .1, 8 .9, 8.2, and 10 .0 vu
0
below the peaks of the carrier phrases in Lists
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. Standard deviations
were approximately 1.0 vu . The target words for
PRESENTATION LEVEL (dB HL)
Lists 1, 2, 3, and 4 were 7.1, 7.9, 7.6, and 8.8 vu,
Figure 2 Articulation functions for the original Hirsh respectively, above the level of the calibration
et al (1952) W-22 data (filled circles) and for the current tone . Similar findings have been reported using
W-22 data (circles) from the same recording with Hirsh a graphic level recorder (Gengel and Kupperman,
as the speaker. The mean correct recognition (%) is plot- 1980). In the Gengel and Kupperman report, the
ted as a function of the presentation level (dB HL). The
carrier phrases on the Technisonic discs were
lines connecting the data points are the best-fit, second-
degree polynomials (Hirsh et al, 1952-y = 31 .281 + about 8 dB above the level of the calibration
5.0414x - .095064x2, R2 = 0.99) . tone, with the W-22 words being 6 to 7 dB above

166

the level of the tone . Further confirmation of the
level difference on the Technisonic records of
the W-22 materials comes from the slightly dif-
ferent prospective of Studebaker and Sherbecoe
(1991), who reported that the calibration tone
was "2 .3 dB below the long term RMS level of
the test words." Thus, data on the Technisonic
Studio recordings of the W-22 materials from
three measurement techniques indicates that the
calibration tone is 8 to 10 vu (or dB) below the
peak level of the carrier phrases.
In the original report, Hirsh et al (1952, p.
188) reported that "the 1,000 cps calibration
tone on the inner face of every record is at the
average level of the carrier phrases." Two rele-
vant assumptions can be posited. First, the
"average level" used by Hirsh et al (1952) to
calibrate the discs is not the same as the "peak
level" currently used to calibrate. Second, the
same calibration procedures and levels were
used on both the magnetic tape version and the
record version of the W-22s. Psychometrically,
this set of circumstances would result in an
articulation function that is displaced to lower
sound pressure levels in comparison to the artic-
ulation function that is based on the calibration
tone reflecting the peaks of the carrier phrases .
This is consistent with the relation observed in
Figure 2 in which the W-22 function from Hirsh
et al (1952) occurs at presentation levels 10 dB
.. 100
80
60
40
20
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
PRESENTATION LEVEL (dB HL)
Figure 3 Articulation functions for the Davis (1948) PB-
50 data (filled squares) and for the current PB-50 data
(squares) from the same recording with Rush Hughes as
the speaker. The mean correct recognition (%) is plotted
as a function of the presentation level (dB HL). The lines
connecting the data points are the best-fit, second-degree
polynomials (Davis, 1948-y = -1 .8857 + 4.6412x
- 0.047892x2, R2 = 0.99) .
Norms for W-22 and PB-50s on CD/Heckendorf et al
100
80
60
40
20
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
PRESENTATION LEVEL (dB HL)
Figure 4 Articulation functions for the VA CD ver-
sions of the W-22 (circles), PB-50 (squares), and North-
western University Auditory Test No . 6 (triangles) word
recognition lists. The mean correct recognition (%) is
plotted as a function of the presentation level (dB HL).
The lines connecting the data points are the best-fit, sec-
ond-degree polynomials (W-22s and PB-50s) and the
best-fit, third-degree polynomial (NU-6-y = -1 .3643
- 0.65480x = 0.32045x2 - 0.0065301x3^, R2 = 0.99) .
lower than the W-22 function generated in the
current investigation.
Perhaps an additional contributing vari-
able to the difference between the Hirsh et al
(1952) and the current study was the familiar-
ity that the subjects had with the stimulus
materials, the listening task, the listening envi-
ronment, and the speaker. In the original study,
the subjects (1) were given a list of the 200
words to read at the beginning of each of eight
2.5-hour test sessions on consecutive days ; (2) lis-
tened to six randomizations of each of the four
lists presented at 100 dB SPL, which served to
"indoctrinate" the listeners; and (3) listened to
each of the 24 lists (six randomizations of four
lists) at five to seven 10-dB intervals on the
articulation functions. Thus, each subject heard
each of the four word lists 36 to 48 times. In the
current study, the subjects were not allowed to
read or listen to test lists other than when they
were exposed to each list four times during the
experiment . Furthermore, an ascending level
procedure was used so that the initial presen-
tations would not influence performance at sub-
sequent higher presentation levels . Based on
the familiarity variable, we conclude, as did
Hirsh et al (1952), that the data from the orig-
inal W-22 study should be considered "experi-
mental" based on the use of "experienced"
Journal of the American Academy of Audiology/Volume 8, Number 3, June 1997
listeners, whereas the data from the current
study are more directly representative of the clin-
ical situation that involves patients with "naive"
listening skills .
In Figure 3, the original articulation func-
tions for the Rush Hughes recording of the PB-
50s (filled squares) are illustrated along with the
PB-50s' articulation function from the current
study (open squares) . The original PB-50 data
based on 10 listeners were extracted from Davis
(Fig. 1; 1948), again using 20 dB to convert to
hearing level (see Table 2), and were fit with a
second-degree polynomial . For equal intelligi-
bility, the PB-50 materials presented from the
CD required higher presentation levels than
were required in the reports of 40 years ago.
For the PB-50 materials, the functions in
Figure 3 differed by 0.7 dB at 20 percent correct,
5.9 dB at 50 percent, and 17 .9 dB at 80 percent
correct with an average difference between the
20 percent and 80 percent correct points of 7.3
dB . Additionally, the observed slope of the orig-
inal function (3 .4%/dB) is twice the slope of the
function from the current study (1 .7%/dB) . The
paucity of details in the Davis report (1948)
about the experimental conditions, subjects, cal-
ibration, etc. makes it difficult to speculate on
the differences between the two functions. We
would, however, like to offer two scenarios. First,
with the original Davis data, there is the sug-
gestion (Davis et al, 1949) that the 1000-Hz cal-
ibration tone was 2.5 dB below the peaks of the
carrier phrase, which would account for some of
the difference between the two functions shown
in Figure 3. Second, time and the copying/record-
ing process have degraded the PB-50 materials
with the substantial loss of high-frequency
energy. Support for this comes from observa-
tions of the digital waveforms of the Rush
Hughes recordings . The amplitudes of the ini-
tial and final consonants, especially the /s/ and
/sh/, are substantially reduced in comparison
to initial and final consonants in other speech
materials that we have observed . This type of
degradation could account for portions of the
difference in the slopes of the functions shown
in Figure 3.
Comparisons across CD Functions
Figure 4 illustrates the functions obtained
in the present investigation for the CD versions
of the W-22 (circles) and PB-50 (squares) word
lists and in a study by Wilson et al (1990) for the
CD version of the NU-6 (triangles) word lists. At
the lower presentation levels (below 12 dB HL),
168
the means for the NU-6 word lists were lower
than those for both the W-22 and PB-50 lists. At
16 dB HL, the means for the NU-6 and PB-50
recordings were essentially the same (44.0%
[±15 .6%] and 46 .2% [±10 .0%], respectively).
Above 24 dB HL, the mean scores for the NU-6
word lists closely approximated the mean scores
for the W-22 word lists. Differences between
mean scores for the W-22 and NU-6 recordings
were less than 4 percent at presentation levels
of 24, 28, and 32 dB HL . Data for the NU-6
recordings were not available for the three high-
est presentation levels (40, 48, and 56 dB HL)
used in the current investigation.
The corresponding slopes of the mean func-
tions for each of the three sets of materials were
compared . The steepest slope occurred for the
NU-6 word lists (4 .5%a/dB) ; the slope for the CID
W-22 word lists (4 .1%/dB) was slightly shal-
lower. Beyond the linear portion of the articu-
lation function (28 dB HL), however, the plateau
regions of the functions were essentially indis-
tinguishable . In contrast, the mean slope for
the PB-50 word lists (1 .9°10/dB) was about half
as steep as the functions for either the W-22 or
NU-6 recordings . Not only does the linear por-
tion vary, but the function for the PB-50s did not
result in a characteristic plateau region . Per-
formance for the PB-50s continued to improve
with increased presentation levels, even at the
highest levels studied.
Test-Retest Reliability
Retest performance scores were compared
to initial test scores at levels of 8, 20, and 32 dB
HL . The results of this comparison are listed in
Table 3 and are illustrated as bivariate plots in
Figures 5 (W-22) and 6 (PB-50). Six individual
one-way, repeated measures analyses of variance
(ANOVAs) were completed by level to determine
if significant differences existed between initial
and retest scores for both the W-22s and PB-50s .
A significant difference between initial and
retest conditions was found only for the CID W-
22 word lists at a presentation level of 8 dB HL
(F[1,23] = 14 .84; p < .05) ; a test-retest difference
of approximately 9 percent was observed for
this condition, compared to 3 to 4 percent for
other retest conditions . For all other analyses,
there were no significant differences (p > .05)
between initial and retest conditions . Mean
retest scores were higher than initial mean
scores for each condition, indicating the possi-
bility of a slight learning effect . The retest
increase of 1 to 4 percent, however, corresponded
 Norms for W-22 and PB-50s on CD/Heckendorf et al

Table 3 Mean Word Recognition Scores and

Standard Deviations (Both in Percent Correct) N
w
Obtained at Three Levels (8, 20, and 32 dB HL) W 100
for Test and Retest Presentations of the W-22 cc
and PB-50 Recordings 80
OR
0

8 dB HL 20 dB FIL 32 dB HL Z
O 60
H
Test Retest Test Retest Test Retest Z
C7 40
W-22 O
V
Mean 25 .1 33 .7 73 .3 75 .4 91 .8 92 .4 W
M 20
SD 14 .3 13 .7 11 .1 11 .0 4 .7 4 .5
H
PB-50 V
W 0
Mean 24 .1 27 .2 53 .0 56 .6 71 .0 73 .9
SD 9 .6 9 .0 12 .0 11 .0 8 .4 8 .5
0 0 20 40 60 80 100
Subjects were 24 listeners with normal hearing . V CORRECT RECOGNITION (%)--TEST
Figure 5 Bivariate plots of the test (abscissa) and
retest (ordinate) percent correct recognition of the W-22
materials at 8 dB HL (squares), 20 dB HL (circles), and
32 dB HL (triangles). The diagonal line represents equal
to only a one- or two-word difference . The stan- test-retest performance.
dard deviations for each retest comparison were
within 1 percent of the initial standard devia-
tions. Previously reported results obtained from by a few earlier researchers suggested that the
phonograph and magnetic tape versions of the original phonograph versions of the PB-50 word
CID W-22 recordings resulted in similar mean lists were not equivalent ; some lists were report-
difference scores (<4%) and standard deviations edly easier or harder than others (Eldert and
(<1%) between initial and retest scores (Hunt- Davis, 1951 ; Wolfe and O'Connell, 1959). The
ington and Ross, 1962 ; Beattie and Raffm, 1985). four lists available on CD (8, 9, 10, 11) resulted
Larger mean differences (<_8%) were reported by in mean word recognition scores and standard
Beattie and Raffin (1985) at lower presentation deviations of 88 .1 percent (±4.5), 89 .0 percent
levels of 25 and 30 dB SPL (5 and 10 dB HL) for (±4 .3), 84 .0 percent (±4.4), and 91 .7 percent
the Auditec of St . Louis recordings of the CID W- (±4.2), respectively. These results were similar
22 word lists (magnetic tape). The test-retest to previously reported data in that List 11 was
results of the current investigation, then, closely consistently easier than the other three lists
parallel those previously reported for other (Eldert and Davis, 1951 ; Wolfe and O'Connell,
media versions of the CID W-22 recordings . 1959). In contrast to earlier data for phono-
Thus, the transfer of the original recordings to graph versions of the PB-50s (Eldert and Davis,
CD did not alter test-retest reliability. Test-retest 1951), List 10 resulted in the lowest mean score
reliability was judged to be good for both the CID rather than List 8. Mean scores for the current
W-22 and Rush Hughes recordings based on the investigation varied by less than 8 percent with
similarities between mean performance scores, the standard deviations across lists essentially
low standard deviations, and overall agreement equivalent (approximately 4%). A list x sub-
in scores across sessions . jects, repeated measures ANOVArevealed a sig-
nificant main effect for list (F[3,691 = 19 .09; p <
List Equivalency .05) . Post-hoc analyses were completed using
Scheffe's test (Bruning and Kintz, 1977) to fur-
Although Hirsh et al (1952) demonstrated ther evaluate the interactions between lists; the
list equivalency for the W-22 word lists, similar critical difference score associated with a prob-
information was not available for the PB-50 ability of .05 was 3.66 percent correct. Statisti-
lists. Therefore, performance equivalency for cal analyses revealed that only interactions with
the four PB-50 word lists recorded by Rush List 10 were significant; scores for List 10 were
Hughes (8, 9, 10, 11) was investigated to deter- consistently lower than for the other lists. Even
mine if word recognition scores differed across though statistical analyses revealed a significant
lists; presentation was at 56 dB HL in an attempt difference between lists, the amount of difference
to elicit maximum performance. Data presented between means (2-8%) corresponded to one to
Journal of the American Academy of Audiology/Volume 8, Number 3, June 1997

H
N F is
W 0.07 -
100
w
0.06 -
80 0.05 10
oc
w 0
a. 0.04 C
60 z z
0 I
F 0 .03
a4 -5
40 0.02
0
aa
0.01 -
20
nIrIiIi~IIIIIIII~III~IIII~IIII~III~iIIIlI1
18 36 54 72
0
Number of Correct Responses

Figure 6 Bivariate plots of the test (abscissa) and

retest (ordinate) percent correct recognition of the PB-50 F lo
materials at 8 dB HL (squares), 20 dB HL (circles), and
32 dB HL (triangles). The diagonal line represents equal -8
es 0.04
test-retest performance.
m
W 0.03 -6
C
z
z 0.02 4 .1
0
Pe.
four items based on a 50- or 25-item test . Only 2
0 .01-
for extreme word recognition scores of 0 percent 0
and 100 percent would differences of these per-
a
a ~~(~mil~ll~llllllll~lllllllll~lllllllllllllll
T
11 1l
72
centages shift an individual's score to a differ- 0 18 36 54

ent confidence interval (Thornton and Raffin, Number of Correct Responses

1978). Therefore, the PB-50 word lists on CD

recorded by Rush Hughes were judged to be
equivalent because clinical decisions would not
be altered based on differences of this magnitude.
Error Analyses
Correct and incorrect responses for each
word contained in the W-22 and PB-50 word
lists were tallied based on 72 possible occur-
rences for each item (24 subjects were presented
each word at three levels). Several items on the
two tests were either scored correct or incor-
rect by a large proportion (>80%) of subjects .
There were 18 such words identified correctly for
the W-22s, compared to 15 for the PB-50 lists.
In contrast, there were 11 words in the PB-50
word lists that were incorrect for more than 80
percent of the subjects . None of the W-22 words
were incorrect 80 percent of the time . Figure 7
provides the number of items within each set of
lists associated with a given number of correct
responses across presentation levels . Visual
inspection of the graphs in addition to the item-
ized error analysis revealed a highly skewed
clustering of easy items for the CID W-22 word
lists. Very few items were missed for more than
Figure 7 Density plots of the number ofitems included
in the W-22 (upper) and PB-50 (lower) word lists that
resulted in a given number of correct responses of 72 pos-
sible occurrences per item. For example, from the W-22
word lists, 12 items were identified correctly 54 times of
72 possible occurrences (upper). From the PB-50 word
lists, five items were identified correctly 54 times of 72
possible occurrences (lower).
half of the presentations across levels . In con-
trast, items included in the Rush Hughes lists
were more evenly distributed across a wide
range of difficulty just as Egan (1948) had
intended when he constructed the PB-50 word
lists. The majority of PB-50 items were near
the center of the distribution, indicating that they
were almost equally identified as correct and
incorrect. Although fewer items were present
near the ends otthe distribution, all levels of dif-
ficulty were represented to some degree for the
PB-50 words.
These error analyses are similar to those
reported by Lovrinic et al (1968) for a single
list of both the CID W-22 and Rush Hughes
recordings available on phonograph records.

For both the current investigation and that of
Lovrinic et al (1968), more items were consis-
tently scored correct from the W-22 word lists
than from the PB-50 word lists. Similarly, the
P13-50s resulted in a number of items that were
perceived incorrectly by a large proportion of sub-
jects compared to 0 and 2, for those same two
studies, respectively.
The results of the current study, then, indi-
cated that the transfer of the original tape record-
ings to CD did not alter the distribution of item
difficulty or the pattern of item identification for
either test. The item analysis provided addi-
tional support for the greater sensitivity of the
Rush Hughes recordings of the PAL PB-50 word
lists for differentiating word recognition abilities
compared to the CID W-22 recordings . Results
of the current item analysis may provide insight
into the development of more sensitive word
recognition tests based on reconstruction of the
Rush Hughes word lists . Specifically, elimination
of items that were extremely easy or difficult
would provide a more balanced range of difficulty
and, potentially, a more sensitive test.
Summary
The purpose of this investigation was to
provide normative data for the CID W-22 and
PB-50 word recognition tests available on CD .
Presentation levels on average needed to be 10
dB higher for the PB-50 word lists in order to
obtain word recognition performance scores
equal to those for the W-22s . Maximum word
recognition scores of 95 to 100 percent were
obtained for the W-22s at lower presentation
levels (?40 dB HL), compared to 80 to 90 percent
for the P13-50s at the maximum presentation
level (56 dB HL). The slope for the W-22 artic-
ulation function (4.1%/dB) was over twice that
for the PB-50 function (1 .9%/dB). Error analy-
ses demonstrated significant differences in item
difficulty between W-22 and PB-50 word lists;
W-22 scores were skewed toward high scores
and PB-50 scores evidenced centralized distri-
butions. Test-retest reliability was judged to be
good for both the W-22 (Hirsh) and PB-50 (Rush
Hughes) recordings available on CD . Similarly,
the PB-50 word lists on CD were judged to be
clinically equivalent .
Acknowledgments. The CD used for this study, Speech
Recognition and Identification Materials, Disc 1.1, can be
obtained through the Long Beach Research Foundation .
Contact Richard Wilson, Ph .D ., at the Veterans Affairs
Medical Center, 126 Audiology, Mountain Home, TN
37684, (423) 926-1171, Ext. 7553 .
Norms for W-22 and PB-50s on CD/Heckendorf et al
The first author would like to thank her coauthors for their
numerous revisions and input leading to the completion
of this project.
A paper based on portions of this research was presented
at the 1994 meeting of the American Speech-Language-
Hearing Association in New Orleans, LA .
This work is based in large part on a master's thesis by
the first author.
REFERENCES
American National Standards Institute. (1987) . American
National Standard Specifications for Instruments to
Measure Aural Acoustic Impedance and Admittance
(Aural Acoustic Immittance) (ANSI S3 .39-1987) . New
York : ANSI .
American National Standards Institute. (1989) . American
National Standard Specification for Audiometers (ANSI
S3 .6-1989) . New York : ANSI .
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association . (1990) .
Guidelines for screening for hearing impairment and
middle-ear disorders. ASHA 32(Supp12) :17-24 .
Beattie R, Raffin M. (1985). Reliability of threshold, slope,
and PB Max for monosyllabic words. J Speech Hear Disord
50 :166-178 .
Bruning J, Kintz B. (1977) . Computational Handbook of
Statistics . 2nd ed . Glenview, IL : Scott, Foresman and
Company.
Cambron N, Wilson R, Shanks J. (1991) . Spondaic word
detection and recognition functions for female and male
speakers . Ear Hear 12 :64-70.
Carhart R. (1965) . Problems in the measurement of speech
discrimination. Arch Otolaryngol 82 :253-260 .
Carhart R. (1970) . Contemporary American tests and
procedures . In : Rojskjar C, ed . Speech Audiometry-
Second Danauox Symposium. Odense, Denmark :
Andelsbogtrykkeriet, 28-36.
Davis H. (1948) . The articulation area and the Social
Adequacy Index for hearing. Laryngoscope 58 :761-778 .
Davis H. (1978) . Audiometry: pure-tone and simple speech
tests. In : Davis H, Silverman S, eds. Hearing and
Deafness . 4th ed. NewYork: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston,
183-221 .
Davis H, Morrical K, Harrison C. (1949) . Memorandum
on recording characteristics and monitoring of word and
sentence tests distributed by Central Institute for the
Deaf. JAcoust Soc Am 21 :552-553 .
Egan J. (1948). Articulation testing methods . Laryngoscope
58 :955-991 .
Eldert E, Davis H. (1951) . The articulation function of
patients with conductive deafness . Laryngoscope 61 :
891-909.
Gengel R, Kupperman G. (1980) . On the calibration of
two commercially recorded versions of CID Auditory Test
W-22 . Ear Hear 1:229-231 .
Goetzinger C. (1972). The Rush Hughes Test in auditory
diagnosis. In : Katz J, ed . Handbook of Clinical Audiology.
1st ed . Baltimore, MD : Williams & Wilkins, 325-333.
Journal of the American Academy of Audiology/Volume 8, Number 3, June 1997
Goetzinger C, Proud G, Dirks D, Embrey J . (1961) . A
study of hearing in advanced age . Arch Otolaryngol 73 :
60-72 .
Goetzinger C, Rousey C . (1959) . Hearing problems in
later life . Medical Times 87 :771-780 .
Goldstein R, Goodman A, King R. (1956). Hearing and
speech in infantile hemiplegia before and after left hemi-
spherectomy. Neurology 6:869-875 .
Hirsh I, Davis H, Silverman S, Reynolds E, Eldert E,
Benson R. (1952). Development of materials for speech
audiometry. J Speech Hear Disord 17 :321-337 .
Huntington D, Ross M. (1962) . The Reliability and
Equivalency of the CID W-22 Auditory Tests. Brooks AFB,
TX : USAF Aerospace Medical Center.
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. (1992) .
Electrical and Electronics Terms. York : IEEE .
Lilly D, Franzen R . (1968) . Reproducing styli for speech
audiometry. J Speech Hear Res 11 :817-824 .
Lovrinic J, Burgi E, Curry E . (1968) . A comparative eval-
uation of five speech discrimination measures . JSpeech
Hear Res 11 :372-381 .
Silverman S, Hirsh I. (1955). Problems related to the use
of speech in clinical audiometry. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol
64 :1234-1244 .
Studebaker G, Sherbecoe R . (1991) . Frequency-impor-
tance and transfer functions for recorded CID W-22 word
lists . J Speech Hear Res 34 :427-438 .
Thornton A, Raffin M. (1978) . Speech-discrimination
scores modeled as a binomial variable . J Speech Hear
Res 21 :507-518 .
Thurlow W, Davis H, Silverman S, Walsh T. (1949) .
Further statistical study of auditory tests in relation to
the fenestration operation . Laryngoscope 59 :113-129 .
Thurlow W, Silverman S, Davis H, Walsh T . (1948) . A
statistical study of auditory tests in relation to the fen-
estration operation. Laryngoscope 58 :43-66 .
Wilson, R. (1993) . Development and use of auditory
compact discs in auditory evaluation. J Rehabil Res 30 :
342-351.
Wilson R, Preece J, ThorntonA . (1990a) . Clinical use of
the compact disc in speech audiometry. ASHA 32 :47, 51 .
Wilson R, Zizz C, Shanks J, Causey G . (1990b) . Normative
data in quiet, broadband noise, and competing message
for Northwestern University Auditory Test No . 6 by a
female speaker. J Speech Hear Disord 55 :771-778 .
Wolfe A, O'Connell M. (1959) . Sources of Variability among
Articulation Tests for Normal Ears with Pb Word Lists.
Randolph AFB, TX : USAF School of Aviation Medicine .