Copper J C, Gates G A, Owen J H, Dickson H D
J Speech Hear Disord. 1975 May;40(2):260-9. doi: 10.1044/jshd.4002.260.
The hearing of 539 children were screened by conventional audiometric techniques and an abbreviated form of impedance audiometry. Otoscopic examination and estimates of the cost to accurately detect hearing loss were used as critieria for comparing the two methods. The impedance technique detected 94% of hearing disorders, the audiometric, 24%. Projections of cost included a factor for number screened. These demonstrated that the impedance technique was less expensive and approached one-sixth the cost of the audiometric technique at a rate of 10,000 children per year. A routine application of the impedance technique in an ongoing hearing conservation program (N = 2712) supported the initial conclusion that it was more effective and more easily employable than audiometric screening. One child who passed impedance screening was shown to have a 50-dB sensorineural loss. It was concluded that an abbreviated form of impedance audiometry that includes a single high-frequency screening tone is the technique of choice for school screening.
采用传统听力测验技术和一种简化形式的声阻抗测听法对539名儿童的听力进行了筛查。耳镜检查以及准确检测听力损失的成本估算被用作比较这两种方法的标准。声阻抗技术检测出94%的听力障碍，而听力测验技术仅检测出24%。成本预测包括筛查人数这一因素。结果表明，声阻抗技术成本更低，以每年筛查10000名儿童的速度计算，其成本接近听力测验技术的六分之一。在一项正在进行的听力保护计划（N = 2712）中常规应用声阻抗技术，支持了最初的结论，即它比听力测验筛查更有效且更易于应用。一名通过声阻抗筛查的儿童被发现有50分贝的感音神经性听力损失。得出的结论是，一种包含单一高频筛查音的简化形式的声阻抗测听法是学校筛查的首选技术。
