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 *

90 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 7176622)

  • 1. 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]  

  • 2. 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]  

  • 3. 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]  

  • 4. 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]  

  • 5. 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]  

  • 6. [The Freiburg speech intelligibility test : A pillar of speech audiometry in German-speaking countries].
    Hoth S
    HNO; 2016 Aug; 64(8):540-8. PubMed ID: 27259640
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. A theoretical basis for clinically relevant proficiency testing evaluation limits. Sensitivity analysis of the effect of inherent test variability on acceptable method error.
    Ross JW
    Arch Pathol Lab Med; 1988 Apr; 112(4):421-34. PubMed ID: 3355344
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. "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]  

  • 9. [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]  

  • 10. Statistics for diagnostic procedures. II. The significance of "no significance": what a negative statistical test really means.
    Phillips WC; Scott JA; Blasczcynski G
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1983 Jul; 141(1):203-6. PubMed ID: 6602519
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Clinical biostatistics XXXI. On the sensitivity, specificity, and discrimination of diagnostic tests.
    Feinstein AR
    Clin Pharmacol Ther; 1975 Jan; 17(1):104-16. PubMed ID: 1122664
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Evaluation of an articulation-index based model for predicting the effects of adaptive frequency response hearing aids.
    Fabry DA; Van Tasell DJ
    J Speech Hear Res; 1990 Dec; 33(4):676-89. PubMed ID: 2273883
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. 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]  

  • 14. [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]  

  • 15. 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]  

  • 16. [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]  

  • 17. 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]  

  • 18. [The adaptive Freiburg monosyllabic test in noise : Development of a procedure and comparison of the results with the Oldenburg sentence test].
    Memmeler T; Schönweiler R; Wollenberg B; Löhler J
    HNO; 2019 Feb; 67(2):118-125. PubMed ID: 30519714
    [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. Development of the A§E test battery for assessment of pitch perception in speech.
    Heeren W; Coene M; Vaerenberg B; Avram A; Cardinaletti A; del Bo L; Pascu A; Volpato F; Govaerts PJ
    Cochlear Implants Int; 2012 Nov; 13(4):206-19. PubMed ID: 22449360
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 5.