1994•PubMedRequires access

The validity of tuning fork tests in diagnosing hearing loss.

D M Miltenburg

Open publisher page 39 citations

Abstract

Tuning fork tests are subjective and response bias must be accounted for when determining their validity as diagnostic tools. A significant proportion of patients who present for otologic evaluation have mixed hearing loss and it is important to know how this group responds to tuning fork testing. The need for masking in audiometry is indisputable but its role in tuning fork testing has never been established. The purpose of this study was to determine the sensitivity of tuning fork tests. The Weber, unmasked and masked Rinne, and Bing tests were administered in a prospective, random, and blind manner to 68 patients referred for audiologic assessment. Patients found to have normal hearing served as the control group. Signal Detection Theory was used to compare the results to pure-tone air- and bone-conduction audiometry. Overall the Rinne is an unbiased test with a sensitivity of 0.84 regardless of the type, severity, or frequency of hearing loss. This is not improved by masking. There is no role for either the Weber or Bing as independent tests. Mixed hearing loss behaves as conductive hearing loss. The Rinne without masking should be administered to patients suspected of having a hearing loss.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Tuning fork tests are subjective and response bias must be accounted for when determining their validity as diagnostic tools. A significant proportion of patients who present for otologic evaluation have mixed hearing loss and it is important to know how this group responds to tuning fork testing. The need for masking in audiometry is indisputable but its role in tuning fork testing has never been established. The purpose of this study was to determine the sensitivity of tuning fork tests. The Weber, unmasked and masked Rinne, and Bing tests were administered in a prospective, random, and blind manner to 68 patients referred for audiologic assessment. Patients found to have normal hearing served as the control group. Signal Detection Theory was used to compare the results to pure-tone air- and bone-conduction audiometry. Overall the Rinne is an unbiased test with a sensitivity of 0.84 regardless of the type, severity, or frequency of hearing loss. This is not improved by masking. There is no role for either the Weber or Bing as independent tests. Mixed hearing loss behaves as conductive hearing loss. The Rinne without masking should be administered to patients suspected of having a hearing loss.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 39 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Tuning fork tests are subjective and response bias must be accounted for when determining their validity as diagnostic tools. A significant proportion of patients who present for otologic evaluation have mixed hearing loss and it is important to know how this group responds to tuning fork testing. The need for masking in audiometry is indisputable but its role in tuning fork testing has never been established. The purpose of this study was to determine the sensitivity of tuning fork tests. The Weber, unmasked and masked Rinne, and Bing tests were administered in a prospective, random, and blind manner to 68 patients referred for audiologic assessment. Patients found to have normal hearing served as the control group. Signal Detection Theory was used to compare the results to pure-tone air- and bone-conduction audiometry. Overall the Rinne is an unbiased test with a sensitivity of 0.84 regardless of the type, severity, or frequency of hearing loss. This is not improved by masking. There is no role for either the Weber or Bing as independent tests. Mixed hearing loss behaves as conductive hearing loss. The Rinne without masking should be administered to patients suspected of having a hearing loss.

Key concepts: Audiology, Tuning fork, Medicine, Hearing loss, Bone conduction, Audiometry, Masking (illustration), Conductive hearing loss

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
The validity of tuning fork tests in diagnosing hearing loss. — Research Paper | ScholarLens