Assessment of Inter- and Intra-Audiologist Agreements on Auditory Brainstem Response (ABR) Waves Interpretation and ABR Variability.
Ahmad Aidil Arafat Dzulkarnain, N Che Azid
Abstract
Ahmad Aidil Arafat Dzulkarnain, N Che Azid
Abstract
AIM OF STUDY: This study investigated the consistency in Auditory Brainstem Response (ABR) waveform evaluations between two audiologists (inter-audiologist agreement) and within each of the audiologist (intra-audiologist agreement). METHODS: Two audiologists from one of the audiology clinics in Kuantan, Pahang, Malaysia were involved in this study. Both audiologists were required to identify and mark the presence of Waves I, III and V in 66 ABR waveforms. Over a one-month interval, each audiologist was required to carry out the same procedure on the same ABR waveforms. This process was continued until we had three separate reviews from each audiologist. RESULTS: There was a high inter-audiologist ABR waveform identification agreement (over the range 81.71-89.77%), but a lower intra-audiologist ABR waveform identification agreement (over the range 50%-78%) for both audiologists. Our results also showed a high intra-audiologist ABR latency agreement within 0.2 ms (>90%), but a slightly lower inter-audiologist latency agreement (75-84%) within 0.2 ms. CONCLUSION: Our results support the need for the clinic to implement further strategies for improving the respective lower agreements and consistencies. These include conducting a continuous education program and using an objective algorithm to support their interpretations.
OpenAlex reports 1 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.
AIM OF STUDY: This study investigated the consistency in Auditory Brainstem Response (ABR) waveform evaluations between two audiologists (inter-audiologist agreement) and within each of the audiologist (intra-audiologist agreement). METHODS: Two audiologists from one of the audiology clinics in Kuantan, Pahang, Malaysia were involved in this study. Both audiologists were required to identify and mark the presence of Waves I, III and V in 66 ABR waveforms. Over a one-month interval, each audiologist was required to carry out the same procedure on the same ABR waveforms. This process was continued until we had three separate reviews from each audiologist. RESULTS: There was a high inter-audiologist ABR waveform identification agreement (over the range 81.71-89.77%), but a lower intra-audiologist ABR waveform identification agreement (over the range 50%-78%) for both audiologists. Our results also showed a high intra-audiologist ABR latency agreement within 0.2 ms (>90%), but a slightly lower inter-audiologist latency agreement (75-84%) within 0.2 ms. CONCLUSION: Our results support the need for the clinic to implement further strategies for improving the respective lower agreements and consistencies. These include conducting a continuous education program and using an objective algorithm to support their interpretations.
Key concepts: Audiologist, Auditory brainstem response, Medicine, Audiology, Waveform, Computer science, Hearing loss, Telecommunications