目的：分析普通话言语测听单音节词表在山西方言人群中的测试结果与普通话组有无差异，并探讨本套单音节词表在山西方言人群中应用时的复测信度。方法选取山西省的5个方言区，每个区选取母语为方言的“耳科正常”受试者12名，在10dB HLSpe ch给声强度下依次测试22张词表，每位受试者词表测试顺序相同；10-20天后在与第一次相同的条件下进行重复测试，记录每张表的识别率得分。结果两独立样本t检验结果显示方言组总体测试得分与普通话组差异有统计学意义（P<0.01）；配对t检验示除并州片外其他几个方言区前后两次测听结果差异均有统计学意义；5个方言区总体初测得分65.0%±14.6%，复测得分67.2%±12.1%，临界差值15.9%，各个方言区临界差值12.9%-17.8%。结论本套单音节词表在山西方言组测试结果与普通话组有差异，方言区人群前后两次测试结果应超过该方言区的临界差值，才能认为所做听力学干预措施有效；学习效应对单音节表测听结果影响较大。%Objective To analyze the difference between populations speaking Shanxi dialect and a mandarin speaking group in performance when tested by mandarin speech test materials,as well as the validity of this monosyllable list set when applied to populations speaking Shanxi dialect. Methods“Otologically normal”native dialect speaking subjects from 5 dialect zones in Shanxi province (12 from each zone) were selected. The 22 lists in the set were tested in each participant in the same order at 10 dB HL (Spe ch), and the rate of word recognition recorded. The test was repeated in each participant within 10-20 days. Results T-test showed that word recognition scores among the dialect groups and mandarin group were statistically significant (P<0.01). Paired t-test showed that the test-retest differences were statistically significant among all dialect areas, except of the Bingzhou dialect area. The initial test score was 65.0%± 14.6%, and the retest scores was 67.2%± 12.1%for the dialect groups, showing an overall critical difference of 15.9% and various critical differences of 12.9%-17.8% across the dialect groups. Conclusions Mandarin crowd test results of this set of monosyllabic lists cannot be directly applied to populations speaking Shanxi dialects. Only when dialect speaking population test-retest results difference exceeds the critical difference, can audiology intervention be considered effective. The learning effect can also influence the result of speech audiometry.
展开▼
