title: The Words-in-Noise Test (WIN), list 3: a practice list.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  The Words-in-Noise Test (WIN) was developed as an instrument to quantify the ability of listeners to understand monosyllabic words in background noise using multitalker babble (Wilson, 2003). The 50% point, which is calculated with the Spearman-Kärber equation (Finney, 1952), is used as the evaluative metric with the WIN materials. Initially, the WIN was designed as a 70-word instrument that presented ten unique words at each of seven signal-to-noise ratios from 24 to 0 dB in 4 dB decrements. Subsequently, the 70-word list was parsed into two 35-word lists that achieved equivalent recognition performances (Wilson and Burks, 2005). This report involves the development of a third list (WIN List 3) that was developed to serve as a practice list to familiarize the participant with listening to words presented in background babble.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  To determine-on young listeners with normal hearing and on older listeners with sensorineural hearing loss-the psychometric properties of the WIN List 3 materials.
  
  
  METHODS
  A quasi-experimental, repeated-measures design was used.
  
  
  METHODS
  Twenty-four young adult listeners (M = 21.6 yr) with normal pure-tone thresholds (≤ 20 dB HL at 250 to 8000 Hz) and 24 older listeners (M = 65.9 yr) with sensorineural hearing loss participated.
  
  
  METHODS
  The level of the babble was fixed at 80 dB SPL with the level of the words varied from 104 to 80 dB SPL in 4 dB decrements.
  
  
  RESULTS
  For listeners with normal hearing, the 50% points for Lists 1 and 2 were similar (4.3 and 5.1 dB S/N, respectively), both of which were lower than the 50% point for List 3 (7.4 dB S/N). A similar relation was observed with the listeners with hearing loss, 50% points for Lists 1 and 2 of 12.2 and 12.4 dB S/N, respectively, compared to 15.8 dB S/N for List 3. The differences between Lists 1 and 2 and List 3 were significant. The relations among the psychometric functions and the relations among the individual data both reflected these differences.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The significant ∼3 dB difference between performances on WIN Lists 1 and 2 and on WIN List 3 by the listeners with normal hearing and the listeners with hearing loss dictates caution with the use of List 3. The use of WIN List 3 should be reserved for ancillary purposes in which equivalent recognition performances are not required, for example, as a practice list or a stand alone measure.
authors.affiliation: James H. Quillen VA Medical Center, Mountain Home, TN, USA. richard.wilson2@va.gov
authors.forename: Richard H
authors.initials: RH
authors.lastname: Wilson
authors.forename: Kelly L
authors.initials: KL
authors.lastname: Watts
mesh_terms: D000293:Adolescent; D000368:Aged; D001301:Audiometry, Pure-Tone; D001309:Auditory Threshold; D006319:Hearing Loss, Sensorineural / Q000175:diagnosis* / Q000503:physiopathology* / Q000523:psychology; D006320:Hearing Tests / Q000379:methods; D006801:Humans; D008875:Middle Aged; D009622:Noise; D015800:Protozoan Proteins; D011571:Psychoacoustics; D011594:Psychometrics; D013067:Speech Perception; D055815:Young Adult
chemical_list: D015800:Protozoan Proteins; C072098:aginactin protein, Dictyostelium