International journal of audiology · 2024
Remote self-report and speech-in-noise measures predict clinical audiometric thresholds.
СтатьяВалидационное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Motlagh Zadeh Lina, Brennan Veronica, Swanepoel De Wet, Lin Li, Moore David R
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Developments in smartphone technology and the COVID-19 pandemic have highlighted the feasibility and need for remote, but reliable hearing tests. Previous studies used remote testing but did not directly compare results in the same listeners with standard lab or clinic testing. This study investigated validity and reliability of remote, self-administered digits-in-noise (remote-DIN) compared with lab-based, supervised (lab-DIN) testing. Predictive validity was further examined in relation to a commonly used self-report, Speech, Spatial, and Qualities of Hearing (SSQ-12), and lab-based, pure tone audiometry.
DESIGN: DIN speech reception thresholds (SRTs) of adults (18-64 y/o) with normal hearing (NH, N = 16) and hearing loss (HL, N = 18), were measured using English-language digits (0-9), binaurally presented as triplets in one of four speech-shaped noise maskers (broadband, low-pass filtered at 2, 4, 8 kHz) and two phases (diotic, antiphasic).
RESULTS: High, significant intraclass correlation coefficients indicated strong internal consistency of remote-DIN SRTs, which also correlated significantly with lab-DIN SRTs. There was no significant mean difference between remote- and lab-DIN on any tests. NH listeners had significantly higher SSQ scores and remote- and lab-DIN SRTs than listeners with HL. All versions of remote-DIN SRTs correlated significantly with pure-tone-average (PTA), with the 2-kHz filtered test being the best predictor, explaining 50% of the variance in PTA. SSQ total score also significantly and independently predicted PTA (17% of variance) and all test versions of the remote-DIN, except the antiphasic BB test.
CONCLUSIONS: This study underscores the effectiveness of remote DIN test and SSQ-12 in assessing auditory function. These findings suggest the potential for wider access to reliable hearing assessment, particularly in remote or underserved communities.
DESIGN: DIN speech reception thresholds (SRTs) of adults (18-64 y/o) with normal hearing (NH, N = 16) and hearing loss (HL, N = 18), were measured using English-language digits (0-9), binaurally presented as triplets in one of four speech-shaped noise maskers (broadband, low-pass filtered at 2, 4, 8 kHz) and two phases (diotic, antiphasic).
RESULTS: High, significant intraclass correlation coefficients indicated strong internal consistency of remote-DIN SRTs, which also correlated significantly with lab-DIN SRTs. There was no significant mean difference between remote- and lab-DIN on any tests. NH listeners had significantly higher SSQ scores and remote- and lab-DIN SRTs than listeners with HL. All versions of remote-DIN SRTs correlated significantly with pure-tone-average (PTA), with the 2-kHz filtered test being the best predictor, explaining 50% of the variance in PTA. SSQ total score also significantly and independently predicted PTA (17% of variance) and all test versions of the remote-DIN, except the antiphasic BB test.
CONCLUSIONS: This study underscores the effectiveness of remote DIN test and SSQ-12 in assessing auditory function. These findings suggest the potential for wider access to reliable hearing assessment, particularly in remote or underserved communities.