John Andrew B, Kreisman Brian M, Pallett Stephen
Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA.
Noise Health. 2012 Jan-Feb;14(56):13-20. doi: 10.4103/1463-1741.93321.
Worker's compensation for hearing loss caused by occupational noise exposure is calculated by varying methods, from state to state within the United States (US), with many employing arithmetic formulas based on the pure-tone audiogram, to quantify hearing loss. Several assumptions unsupported or weakly supported by empirical data underlie these formulas. The present study evaluated the ability of various arithmetic hearing impairment calculations to predict a self-reported hearing handicap in a sample of presenting with sensorineural hearing loss. 204 adults (127 male, 77 female) ranging in age from 18 to 94 served as participants. The sample was selected to exclude patients who had been referred for hearing testing for a medicolegal examination or a hearing conservation appointment. A hearing handicap was measured by the Hearing Handicap Inventory for Adults/for the Elderly (HHIA/E). The covariance analysis of linear structural equations was used to assess the relative strength of correlation with the HHIA/E score among the six formulas and various forms of pure-tone average. The results revealed that all the hearing impairment calculations examined were significantly, but weakly, correlated with the self-reported hearing impairment scores. No significant differences among the predictive abilities of the impairment calculations were evident; however, the average binaural impairment assigned differed significantly among the six calculations examined. Individuals who demonstrated 0% impairment had significantly lower (i.e., better) HHIA/E scores compared to those with non-zero impairment for each formula. These results supported the idea that audiometric data provided an insufficient explanation for real-world hearing difficulties.
美国各州计算因职业噪声暴露导致的听力损失的工伤赔偿的方法各不相同，许多州采用基于纯音听力图的算术公式来量化听力损失。这些公式基于一些未经实证数据支持或支持力度较弱的假设。本研究评估了各种算术听力损伤计算方法预测感音神经性听力损失患者自我报告的听力障碍的能力。204名年龄在18岁至94岁之间的成年人（127名男性，77名女性）参与了研究。该样本被选定以排除因法医学检查或听力保护预约而被转诊进行听力测试的患者。通过成人/老年人听力障碍量表（HHIA/E）来测量听力障碍。使用线性结构方程的协方差分析来评估六个公式和各种形式的纯音平均值与HHIA/E分数之间的相关强度。结果显示，所有检查的听力损伤计算方法与自我报告的听力损伤分数均存在显著但微弱的相关性。损伤计算方法的预测能力之间没有明显差异；然而，在所检查的六种计算方法中，平均双耳损伤程度存在显著差异。对于每个公式，表现出0%损伤的个体的HHIA/E分数显著低于（即更好）有非零损伤的个体。这些结果支持了这样一种观点，即听力测量数据对现实世界中的听力困难提供的解释不足。
