OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the reliability and accuracy of a method for measuring pure tone air conduction thresholds in which the user adjusts test tones to threshold, using an iPad, automated instructions, and minimal supervision. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective nonrandomized validation study. SETTING: University hearing research laboratories and audiology clinics. PATIENTS: Fifty-five adults with hearing loss in at least 1 ear ranging from mild to severe. INTERVENTION: Automated measurement of pure tone air conduction thresholds using the following: a software-controlled adaptive method, and a user-controlled method of adjustment, both implemented on a calibrated iPad and using standard audiometry earphones. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Test-retest reliability of both methods, comparison of thresholds measured with automated techniques to thresholds measured using manual audiometry. RESULTS: For both iPad methods, test-retest differences were smaller than those reported in other studies for manual audiometry. Average automated versus manual threshold differences were within the range of expected variance of manual audiometry. Subjects preferred the adjustment method. CONCLUSION: Both iPad self-test methods yield accurate and reliable pure tone air conduction thresholds.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the reliability and accuracy of a method for measuring pure tone air conduction thresholds in which the user adjusts test tones to threshold, using an iPad, automated instructions, and minimal supervision. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective nonrandomized validation study. SETTING: University hearing research laboratories and audiology clinics. PATIENTS: Fifty-five adults with hearing loss in at least 1 ear ranging from mild to severe. INTERVENTION: Automated measurement of pure tone air conduction thresholds using the following: a software-controlled adaptive method, and a user-controlled method of adjustment, both implemented on a calibrated iPad and using standard audiometry earphones. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Test-retest reliability of both methods, comparison of thresholds measured with automated techniques to thresholds measured using manual audiometry. RESULTS: For both iPad methods, test-retest differences were smaller than those reported in other studies for manual audiometry. Average automated versus manual threshold differences were within the range of expected variance of manual audiometry. Subjects preferred the adjustment method. CONCLUSION: Both iPad self-test methods yield accurate and reliable pure tone air conduction thresholds.