Mosites Emily, Neitzel Richard, Galusha Deron, Trufan Sally, Dixon-Ernst Christine, Rabinowitz Peter
a Department of Epidemiology , University of Washington , Seattle , WA , USA.
e Department of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences , University of Washington , Seattle , WA , USA.
Int J Audiol. 2016 Dec;55(12):782-786. doi: 10.1080/14992027.2016.1226520. Epub 2016 Sep 9.
We assessed the reliability of a hearing risk factor screening survey used by hearing conservation programmes for noise-exposed workers.
We compared workers' answers from the screening survey to their answers to a confidential research questionnaire regarding hearing loss risk factors. We calculated kappa statistics to test the correlation between yes/no questions in the research questionnaire compared to answers from 1 and 5 years of screening surveys.
We compared the screening survey and research questionnaire answers of 274 aluminum plant workers.
Most of the questions in the in-company screening survey showed fair to moderate agreement with the research questionnaire (kappa range: -0.02, 0.57). Workers' answers to the screening survey had better correlation with the research questionnaire when we compared 5 years of screening answers. For nearly all questions, workers were more likely to respond affirmatively on the research questionnaire than the screening survey.
Hearing conservation programmes should be aware that workers may underreport hearing loss risk factors and functional hearing status on an audiometric screening survey. Validating company screening tools could help provide more accurate information on hearing loss and risk factors.
我们评估了听力保护计划用于噪声暴露工人的听力风险因素筛查调查的可靠性。
我们将筛查调查中工人的答案与其针对听力损失风险因素的保密研究问卷的答案进行了比较。我们计算了kappa统计量,以测试研究问卷中“是/否”问题的答案与1年和5年筛查调查答案之间的相关性。
我们比较了274名铝厂工人的筛查调查和研究问卷答案。
公司内部筛查调查中的大多数问题与研究问卷显示出中等程度的一致性(kappa范围:-0.02,0.57)。当我们比较5年的筛查答案时,工人对筛查调查的回答与研究问卷的相关性更好。对于几乎所有问题,工人在研究问卷上比在筛查调查上更有可能给出肯定回答。
听力保护计划应意识到,在听力筛查调查中,工人可能会少报听力损失风险因素和功能性听力状况。验证公司的筛查工具有助于提供有关听力损失和风险因素的更准确信息。