These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

100 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 7152159)

  • 1. The sources of speech discrimination test score variability: a reply to Thornton and Raffin.
    Dillon H
    Ear Hear; 1982; 3(6):340-1. PubMed ID: 7152159
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Application of a probability model based on the binomial distribution to speech-discrimination scores.
    Raffin MJ; Schafer D
    J Speech Hear Res; 1980 Sep; 23(3):570-5. PubMed ID: 7421159
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Comment on "A quantitative examination of the sources of speech discrimination test score variability".
    Thornton A; Raffin MJ
    Ear Hear; 1982; 3(6):340. PubMed ID: 7152158
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. A quantitative examination of the sources of speech discrimination test score variability.
    Dillon H
    Ear Hear; 1982; 3(2):51-8. PubMed ID: 7042422
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. A comparison of half- vs full-list speech discrimination scores in a hearing-impaired geriatric population.
    Penrod JP
    J Aud Res; 1980 Jul; 20(3):181-6. PubMed ID: 7347739
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. The Carhart Memorial Lecture, American Auditory Society, Salt Lake City, Utah 1996. Phoneme and word recognition for words in isolation and in sentences.
    Olsen WO; Van Tasell DJ; Speaks CE
    Ear Hear; 1997 Jun; 18(3):175-88. PubMed ID: 9201453
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. A second look at tests of speech-sound discrimination.
    Bountress NG
    J Commun Disord; 1984 Oct; 17(5):349-59. PubMed ID: 6501597
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Test-retest variability in testing hearing of speech.
    Hughes EC; Arthur RH; Johnson RL
    J Am Aud Soc; 1979; 5(1):17-20. PubMed ID: 511653
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. [Test-retest reliability of the Freiburg monosyllabic speech test].
    Winkler A; Holube I
    HNO; 2016 Aug; 64(8):564-71. PubMed ID: 27286728
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. [The Freiburg monosyllabic test put to the test].
    Baljić I; Hoppe U
    HNO; 2016 Aug; 64(8):538-9. PubMed ID: 27455987
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. [Examination of a training effect in the Freiburg monosyllabic test].
    Schmidt T; Baljić I
    HNO; 2016 Aug; 64(8):584-8. PubMed ID: 27435273
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Critical difference table for word recognition testing derived using computer simulation.
    Carney E; Schlauch RS
    J Speech Lang Hear Res; 2007 Oct; 50(5):1203-9. PubMed ID: 17905906
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. A model for predicting clinically relevant group differences of open-response tests.
    Gutnick HN; St John R
    J Speech Hear Res; 1982 Sep; 25(3):468-72. PubMed ID: 7176622
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. The effect of test difficulty on the sensitivity of speech discrimination tests.
    Dillon H
    J Acoust Soc Am; 1983 Jan; 73(1):336-44. PubMed ID: 6826903
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Nonsense syllable discrimination by picture identification with young children.
    Kelly BR; Pillow G
    J Am Aud Soc; 1979; 4(5):170-2. PubMed ID: 511643
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. "The effect of response method on the difficulty of speech discrimination tests, a response to Wilson and Antablin, JSHD 1980".
    Dillon H
    J Speech Hear Disord; 1982 Feb; 47(1):110-2. PubMed ID: 7176569
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Speech intelligibility as a predictor of cochlear implant outcome in prelingually deafened adults.
    van Dijkhuizen JN; Beers M; Boermans PP; Briaire JJ; Frijns JH
    Ear Hear; 2011; 32(4):445-58. PubMed ID: 21258238
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. [Phonemic balance of the Freiburg monosyllabic speech test].
    Exter M; Winkler A; Holube I
    HNO; 2016 Aug; 64(8):557-63. PubMed ID: 27299891
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Roeser disagrees with validity of VASC screening technique.
    Roeser RJ
    J Sch Health; 1988 Sep; 58(7):266. PubMed ID: 3172719
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Band importance functions for audiological applications.
    Pavlovic CV
    Ear Hear; 1994 Feb; 15(1):100-4. PubMed ID: 8194673
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.