Adult validation of a self-administered tablet audiometer
Mark Bastianelli, Amy E. Mark, Arran McAfee, David Schramm, Renée Lefrançois, Matthew Bromwich
Abstract
Open-access reader
Mark Bastianelli, Amy E. Mark, Arran McAfee, David Schramm, Renée Lefrançois, Matthew Bromwich
Abstract
Open-access reader
BACKGROUND: There is evidence to suggest that rates of hearing loss are increasing more rapidly than the capacity of traditional audiometry resources for screening. A novel innovation in tablet, self-administered portable audiometry has been proposed as a solution to this discordance. The primary objective of this study was to validate a tablet audiometer with adult patients in a clinical setting. Secondarily, word recognition with a tablet audiometer was compared against conventional audiometry. METHODS: Three distinct prospective adult cohorts underwent testing. In group 1 and group 2 testing with the automated tablet audiometer was compared to standard sound booth audiometry. In Group 1, participants' pure tone thresholds were measured with an automated tablet audiometer in a quiet clinic exam room. In Group 2, participants completed monosyllabic word recognition testing using the NU-6 word lists. In Group 3, internal reliability was tested by having participants perform two automated tablet audiometric evaluation in sequence. RESULTS: Group 1 included 40 patients mean age was 54.7 ± 18.4 years old and 60% female; Group 2 included 44 participants mean age was 55.2 ± 14.8 years old and 68.2% female; Group 3 included 40 participants with mean age of 39.4 + 15.9 years old and 60.5% female. In Group 1, compared to standard audiometry, 95.7% (95% CI: 92.6-98.9%) of thresholds were within 10 dB. In Group 2, comparing word recognition results, 96.2% (95% CI: 89.5-98.7%) were clinically equivalent and within a critical difference range. In Group 3, One-way Intraclass Correlation for agreement for the both left- and right-ear pure tone average was 0.98. The mean difference between repeat assessments was 0 (SD = 2.1) in the left ear, and 0.1 (SD = 1.1) in the right ear. CONCLUSION: Puretone audiometry and word recognition testing appears valid when performed by non-healthcare experts using a tablet audiometer outside a sound booth in a quiet environment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02761798. Registered April, 2016 < https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02761798>.
OpenAlex reports 48 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
BACKGROUND: There is evidence to suggest that rates of hearing loss are increasing more rapidly than the capacity of traditional audiometry resources for screening. A novel innovation in tablet, self-administered portable audiometry has been proposed as a solution to this discordance. The primary objective of this study was to validate a tablet audiometer with adult patients in a clinical setting. Secondarily, word recognition with a tablet audiometer was compared against conventional audiometry. METHODS: Three distinct prospective adult cohorts underwent testing. In group 1 and group 2 testing with the automated tablet audiometer was compared to standard sound booth audiometry. In Group 1, participants' pure tone thresholds were measured with an automated tablet audiometer in a quiet clinic exam room. In Group 2, participants completed monosyllabic word recognition testing using the NU-6 word lists. In Group 3, internal reliability was tested by having participants perform two automated tablet audiometric evaluation in sequence. RESULTS: Group 1 included 40 patients mean age was 54.7 ± 18.4 years old and 60% female; Group 2 included 44 participants mean age was 55.2 ± 14.8 years old and 68.2% female; Group 3 included 40 participants with mean age of 39.4 + 15.9 years old and 60.5% female. In Group 1, compared to standard audiometry, 95.7% (95% CI: 92.6-98.9%) of thresholds were within 10 dB. In Group 2, comparing word recognition results, 96.2% (95% CI: 89.5-98.7%) were clinically equivalent and within a critical difference range. In Group 3, One-way Intraclass Correlation for agreement for the both left- and right-ear pure tone average was 0.98. The mean difference between repeat assessments was 0 (SD = 2.1) in the left ear, and 0.1 (SD = 1.1) in the right ear. CONCLUSION: Puretone audiometry and word recognition testing appears valid when performed by non-healthcare experts using a tablet audiometer outside a sound booth in a quiet environment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02761798. Registered April, 2016 < https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02761798>.
Key concepts: Audiometer, Audiometry, Medicine, Audiology, Intraclass correlation, Hearing loss, Psychometrics, Clinical psychology