ReviewSeminars in hearing2023
Test-Retest Reliability and the Role of Task Instructions when Measuring Listening Effort Using a Verbal Response Time Paradigm.
Review in Seminars in hearing, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Listening amidst competing noise taxes one's limited cognitive resources, leading to increased listening effort. As such, there is interest in incorporating a reliable test of listening effort into the clinical test battery. One clinically promising method for measuring listening effort is verbal response time (VRT) because it can be obtained using already-established clinical tasks. In order for widespread implementation of the VRT paradigm, a better understanding of the psychometric properties is needed. The purpose of this work was to improve the understanding of the reliability and sensitivity of the VRT listening task. Using within-subject study designs, we completed a pilot study to evaluate the test-retest reliability (Study 1) and the effects of task instructions and listening condition (Study 2). Preliminary results show that the VRT paradigm enjoys good to excellent test-retest reliability and that neither task instructions nor listening condition meaningfully influence VRT once measurement error is accounted for. Future studies should account for measurement error when considering statistically significant versus meaningful effects of experimental parameters when using listening effort tasks.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.