Clinical validation of the AMTAS automated audiometer

被引:52
作者
Eikelboom, Robert H. | [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Swanepoel, De Wet [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Motakef, Shahpar [1 ,2 ,4 ]
Upson, Gemma S. [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Ear Sci Inst Australia, Subiaco, WA 6008, Australia
[2] Univ Western Australia, Sch Surg, Ear Sci Ctr, Nedlands, WA 6009, Australia
[3] Univ Pretoria, Dept Commun Pathol, ZA-0002 Pretoria, South Africa
[4] Univ Witwatersrand, Dept Otorhinolaryngol & Head & Neck Surg, Johannesburg, South Africa
关键词
Automated audiometry; air conduction; bone conduction; audiometry; BONE-CONDUCTION; HEARING-LOSS; PURE-TONE; AIR; THRESHOLD; RELIABILITY; AUDIOLOGY; ACCURACY; VALIDITY; EARPHONE;
D O I
10.3109/14992027.2013.769065
中图分类号
R36 [病理学]; R76 [耳鼻咽喉科学];
学科分类号
100104 ; 100213 ;
摘要
Objective: To validate the air-and bone-conduction AMTAS automated audiometry system. Design: Prospective study. Test-retest reliability was determined by assessing adults with AMTAS air-and bone-conduction audiometry. Accuracy was determined by comparing AMTAS and manual audiometry conducted on adults. AMTAS testing was conducted in a quiet room and manual audiometry in a sound booth. Study sample: Ten participants for test-retest reliability tests and 44 participants to determine accuracy were included. Participants had varying degrees of hearing loss. Results: For test-retest reliability the overall difference in air-conduction hearing thresholds (n = 119) was 0.5 dB. The spread of differences (standard deviation of absolute differences) was 4.9 dB. For bone-conduction thresholds (n = 99) the overall difference was -0.2 dB, and the spread of differences 4.5 dB. For accuracy the overall difference in air-conduction hearing thresholds (n = 509) between the two techniques was 0.1 dB. The spread of differences was 6.4 dB. For bone-conduction thresholds (n = 295) the overall difference was 0 dB, and the spread of differences 7.7 dB. Conclusions: Variations between air-and bone-conduction audiometry for automated and manual audiometry were within normally accepted limits for audiometry. However, AMTAS thresholds were elevated but not significantly different compared to other contemporary studies that included an automated audiometer.
引用
收藏
页码:342 / 349
页数:8
相关论文
共 25 条
[1]  
ANSI, 1996, S361996 ANSI
[2]  
Berger E.H., 1989, J ACOUST SOC AM, V4, P1392
[3]   STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT [J].
BLAND, JM ;
ALTMAN, DG .
LANCET, 1986, 1 (8476) :307-310
[4]   COMPARISON OF THE AUDITORY THRESHOLD AS MEASURED BY INDIVIDUAL PURE TONE AND BY BEKESY AUDIOMETRY [J].
BURNS, W ;
HINCHCLIFFE, R .
JOURNAL OF THE ACOUSTICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA, 1957, 29 (12) :1274-1277
[5]   3 STUDIES COMPARING PERFORMANCE OF THE ER-3A TUBEPHONE WITH THE TDH-50P EARPHONE [J].
CLARK, JL ;
ROESER, RJ .
EAR AND HEARING, 1988, 9 (05) :268-274
[6]  
DOBIE RA, 1983, LARYNGOSCOPE, V93, P906
[7]   REPEATABILITY OF HIGH-FREQUENCY BONE CONDUCTION THRESHOLDS [J].
FRANK, T ;
RAGLAND, AE .
EAR AND HEARING, 1987, 8 (06) :343-346
[8]   ATTENUATION PROVIDED BY 4 DIFFERENT AUDIOMETRIC EARPHONE SYSTEMS [J].
FRANK, T ;
WRIGHT, DC .
EAR AND HEARING, 1990, 11 (01) :70-78
[9]   Audiology education and practice from an international perspective [J].
Goulios, H. ;
Patuzzi, R. B. .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AUDIOLOGY, 2008, 47 (10) :647-664
[10]   REPRODUCIBILITY OF HEARING THRESHOLD MEASUREMENTS - SUPPLEMENTARY DATA ON BONE-CONDUCTION AND SPEECH AUDIOMETRY [J].
LAUKLI, E ;
FJERMEDAL, O .
SCANDINAVIAN AUDIOLOGY, 1990, 19 (03) :187-190