Validity of diagnostic pure-tone audiometry without a sound-treated environment in older adults

Abstract Objective: To investigate the validity of diagnostic pure-tone audiometry in a natural environment using a computer-operated audiometer with insert earphones covered by circumaural earcups incorporating real-time monitoring of environmental noise. Design: A within-subject repeated measures design was employed to compare air (250 to 8000 Hz) and bone (250 to 4000 Hz) conduction pure-tone thresholds, measured in retirement facilities, with thresholds measured in a sound-treated booth. Study sample: One hundred and forty-seven adults (average age 76 ± 5.7 years) were evaluated. Pure-tone averages were ≥ 25 dB in 59%, mildly (> 40 dB) elevated in 23%, and moderately (> 55 dB) elevated in 6% of ears. Results: Air-conduction thresholds (n = 2259) corresponded within 0 to 5 dB in 95% of all comparisons between the two test environments. Bone-conduction thresholds (n = 1669) corresponded within 0 to 5 dB in 86% of comparisons. Average threshold differences (− 0.6 to 1.1) and standard deviations (3.3 to 5.9) were within typical test-retest reliability limits. Thresholds recorded showed no statistically significant differences (paired samples t-test:p > 0.01) except at 8000 Hz in the left ear. Conclusion: Valid diagnostic pure-tone audiometry can be performed in a natural environment with recently developed technology, offering the possibility of access to diagnostic audiometry in communities where sound-treated booths are unavailable.

[1]  J. L. Clark,et al.  Three studies comparing performance of the ER-3A tubephone with the TDH-50P earphone. , 1988, Ear and hearing.

[2]  James W. Hall,et al.  A systematic review of telehealth applications in audiology. , 2010, Telemedicine journal and e-health : the official journal of the American Telemedicine Association.

[3]  T Frank,et al.  Attenuation provided by four different audiometric earphone systems. , 1990, Ear and hearing.

[4]  E. Laukli,et al.  Reproducibility of hearing threshold measurements. Supplementary data on bone-conduction and speech audiometry. , 1990, Scandinavian audiology.

[5]  E H Berger,et al.  Comparison of the noise attenuation of three audiometric earphones, with additional data on masking near threshold. , 1989, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[6]  B. Olusanya,et al.  Hearing health-care delivery in sub-Saharan Africa – a role for tele-audiology , 2010, Journal of telemedicine and telecare.

[7]  E. H. Berger,et al.  Laboratory Attenuation of Earmuffs and Earplugs Both Singly and in Combination , 1983 .

[8]  De Wet Swanepoel,et al.  Validity of Diagnostic Computer-Based Air and Forehead Bone Conduction Audiometry , 2011, Journal of occupational and environmental hygiene.

[9]  Dan Gauger,et al.  Hearing protection: surpassing the limits to attenuation imposed by the bone-conduction pathways. , 2003, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[10]  S. Arlinger,et al.  Sound attenuation of TDH-39 earphones in a diffuse field of narrow-band noise. , 1986, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[11]  Clark Jl,et al.  Three studies comparing performance of the ER-3A tubephone with the TDH-50P earphone. , 1988 .

[12]  Guidelines for manual pure-tone threshold audiometry. , 1978, ASHA.

[13]  T Frank,et al.  Ambient noise levels in industrial audiometric test rooms. , 1994, American Industrial Hygiene Association journal.

[14]  Brian C J Moore,et al.  AMTAS®: Automated method for testing auditory sensitivity: Validation studies , 2010, International journal of audiology.

[15]  V. Parsa,et al.  Active Noise Reduction Audiometry: A Prospective Analysis of a New Approach to Noise Management in Audiometric Testing , 2008, The Laryngoscope.

[16]  A. Stuart,et al.  Test-retest variability in audiometric threshold with supraaural and insert earphones among children and adults. , 1991, Audiology : official organ of the International Society of Audiology.

[17]  Donald E Morgan,et al.  Automated pure-tone audiometry: an analysis of capacity, need, and benefit. , 2008, American journal of audiology.

[18]  T. Frank,et al.  Hearing thresholds, threshold repeatability, and attenuation values for passive noise-reducing earphone enclosures. , 1997, American Industrial Hygiene Association journal.

[19]  Bencie Woll,et al.  Deafness and hearing impairment. , 2010, European review for medical and pharmacological sciences.

[20]  F. N. Martin,et al.  Insert earphone depth and the occlusion effect. , 2000, American journal of audiology.

[21]  Bradley McPherson,et al.  Telehealth in audiology: The need and potential to reach underserved communities , 2010, International journal of audiology.

[22]  T. Frank,et al.  Ambient Noise Levels in Audiometric Test Rooms Used for Clinical Audiometry , 1993, Ear and hearing.

[23]  De Wet Swanepoel,et al.  Hearing assessment-reliability, accuracy, and efficiency of automated audiometry. , 2010, Telemedicine journal and e-health : the official journal of the American Telemedicine Association.

[24]  J D Durrant,et al.  Maximum Permissible Ambient Noise Levels for Audiometric Test Rooms. , 1993, American journal of audiology.

[25]  Stefan Stenfelt,et al.  Bone-Conducted Sound: Physiological and Clinical Aspects , 2005, Otology & neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology.