↓ Skip to main content

International Collegium of Rehabilitative Audiology (ICRA) recommendations for the construction of multilingual speech tests

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Audiology, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
61 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
119 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
International Collegium of Rehabilitative Audiology (ICRA) recommendations for the construction of multilingual speech tests
Published in
International Journal of Audiology, April 2015
DOI 10.3109/14992027.2015.1030513
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael A. Akeroyd, Stig Arlinger, Ruth A. Bentler, Arthur Boothroyd, Norbert Dillier, Wouter A. Dreschler, Jean-Pierre Gagné, Mark Lutman, Jan Wouters, Lena Wong, Birger Kollmeier

Abstract

To provide guidelines for the development of two types of closed-set speech-perception tests that can be applied and interpreted in the same way across languages. The guidelines cover the digit triplet and the matrix sentence tests that are most commonly used to test speech recognition in noise. They were developed by a working group on Multilingual Speech Tests of the International Collegium of Rehabilitative Audiology (ICRA). The recommendations are based on reviews of existing evaluations of the digit triplet and matrix tests as well as on the research experience of members of the ICRA Working Group. They represent the results of a consensus process. The resulting recommendations deal with: Test design and word selection; Talker characteristics; Audio recording and stimulus preparation; Masking noise; Test administration; and Test validation. By following these guidelines for the development of any new test of this kind, clinicians and researchers working in any language will be able to perform tests whose results can be compared and combined in cross-language studies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 119 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 119 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 20 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 14%
Student > Master 14 12%
Student > Bachelor 13 11%
Professor 7 6%
Other 14 12%
Unknown 34 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 11%
Engineering 9 8%
Neuroscience 8 7%
Psychology 8 7%
Other 17 14%
Unknown 42 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 January 2016.
All research outputs
#7,629,858
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Audiology
#395
of 1,595 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#85,011
of 282,555 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Audiology
#4
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,595 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 282,555 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.