Many subjective experiments have been performed to develop objective speech intelligibility measures, but the novel coronavirus outbreak has made it very difficult to conduct experiments in a laboratory . One solution is to perform remote testing using crowdsourcing; however, because we cannot control the listening conditions, it is unclear whether the results are entirely reliable . In this study, we compared speech intelligibility scores obtained in remote and laboratory experiments . The results showed that the mean and standard deviation (SD) of the remote experiments' speech reception threshold (SRT) were higher than those of the laboratory experiments . However, the variance in the SRTs across the speech-enhancement conditions revealed similarities, implying that remote testing results may be as useful as laboratory experiments to develop an objective measure . We also show that the practice session scores correlate with the SRT values . This is a priori information before performing the main tests and would be useful for data screening to reduce the variability of the SRT distribution.