Mosley Cornetta L, Langley Lauren M, Davis Adrian, McMahon Catherine M, Tremblay Kelly L
Department of Speech and Hearing Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
AD Cave Solutions Ltd, London, United Kingdom.
J Am Acad Audiol. 2019 Mar;30(3):208-216. doi: 10.3766/jaaa.17092. Epub 2018 Jan 15.
The projected increase in the aging population raises concerns about how to manage the health-care needs in a cost-effective way. Within hearing health care, there are presently too few audiologists to meet the expected demand, and training more professionals may not be a feasible way of addressing this problem. For this reason, there is a need to develop different ways of assessing hearing sensitivity that can be conducted accurately and inexpensively when a certified audiologist and/or sound-attenuated booth is unavailable. More specifically, there is a need to determine if the Etymotic Home Hearing Test (HHT) can yield accurate and reliable data from older adults with varying degrees of hearing loss.
To compare audiometric thresholds obtained using the HHT, an automated pure-tone air-conduction test, to those obtained using manual audiometry (MA), among older adults with varying degrees of hearing loss.
Participants were 112 English-speaking adults (58% Female), aged 60 yr and older. Participants were excluded from this study if otoscopy revealed cerumen impaction and/or suspected ear pathology.
All participants completed the HHT on tablet computers in a carpeted classroom and MA in a double-walled sound-attenuated booth using insert earphones for both measures. Both measures were completed in the same test session, and the order of testing (MA versus HHT) was counterbalanced.
Absolute differences in threshold measurements (in dB HL) were calculated across all ears (n = 224 ears) and for all frequencies (octave frequencies from 0.5 to 8 kHz). Correlation and multiple linear regression analyses were conducted to determine if thresholds obtained using the HHT significantly correlated with thresholds using MA. Mean thresholds for each method (HHT and MA) were compared using correlation analyses for each test frequency. Multiple linear regression analysis was used to examine the relationship between the four-frequency pure-tone average (PTA) (average threshold at 0.5, 1, 2, and 4 kHz) in the better-hearing ear measured using the HHT and a set of seven independent factors: four-frequency PTA in the better-hearing ear measured via MA, treatment group (HHT versus MA), age, gender, and degree of hearing loss (mild, moderate, and >moderate).
Correlation analyses revealed significant frequency-specific correlations, ranging from 0.91 to 0.97 (p < 0.001), for air-conduction thresholds obtained using the HHT and MA. Mean HHT thresholds were significantly correlated with mean MA thresholds in both ears across the frequency range. This relationship held true across different degrees of hearing loss. The regression model accounted for a significant amount of variance in the HHT better-ear PTA, with MA better-ear PTA being the only significant predictor in our final model, with no effect of degree of loss, age, or gender.
The HHT is an accurate and cost-effective method of establishing pure-tone air-conduction thresholds, when compared with MA. Therefore, the HHT can be used as a tool to acquire accurate air-conduction hearing thresholds from older adults, in-group settings, without the use of a sound-attenuated booth or a certified audiologist.
预计老年人口的增加引发了人们对如何以具有成本效益的方式满足医疗保健需求的担忧。在听力保健领域,目前听力学家数量过少,无法满足预期需求,培训更多专业人员可能不是解决这一问题的可行方法。因此,需要开发不同的听力敏感度评估方法,以便在没有认证听力学家和/或隔音室的情况下能够准确且低成本地进行评估。更具体地说,需要确定逸美康家庭听力测试(HHT)能否从不同程度听力损失的老年人中获取准确可靠的数据。
比较在不同程度听力损失的老年人中,使用HHT(一种自动纯音气导测试)获得的听力阈值与使用手动听力测试(MA)获得的听力阈值。
参与者为112名60岁及以上的英语使用者(58%为女性)。如果耳镜检查发现耵聍堵塞和/或疑似耳部病变,则将参与者排除在本研究之外。
所有参与者在铺有地毯的教室中使用平板电脑完成HHT测试,并在双层隔音室中使用插入式耳机完成MA测试,两种测试均采用此方式。两种测试均在同一测试时段内完成,测试顺序(MA与HHT)相互平衡。
计算所有耳朵(n = 224只耳朵)和所有频率(从0.5至8 kHz的倍频程频率)的阈值测量值的绝对差值(以dB HL为单位)。进行相关性和多元线性回归分析,以确定使用HHT获得的阈值与使用MA获得的值是否显著相关。使用每个测试频率的相关性分析比较每种方法(HHT和MA)的平均阈值。多元线性回归分析用于研究使用HHT测量的较好听力耳的四频率纯音平均值(PTA)(0.5、1、2和4 kHz处的平均阈值)与一组七个独立因素之间的关系:通过MA测量的较好听力耳的四频率PTA、治疗组(HHT与MA)、年龄和性别以及听力损失程度(轻度、中度和重度)。
相关性分析显示,使用HHT和MA获得的气导阈值在特定频率上具有显著相关性,范围从0.91至0.97(p < 0.001)。在整个频率范围内,双耳的HHT平均阈值与MA平均阈值显著相关。这种关系在不同程度的听力损失中均成立。回归模型解释了HHT较好耳PTA中很大一部分方差,在我们的最终模型中,MA较好耳PTA是唯一的显著预测因子,听力损失程度、年龄或性别均无影响。
与MA相比,HHT是一种准确且具有成本效益的建立纯音气导阈值的方法。因此,HHT可作为一种工具,在群体环境中从老年人获取准确的气导听力阈值,而无需使用隔音室或认证听力学家。