Jessica van Tonder1, De Wet Swanepoel1,2,3, Faheema Mahomed-Asmail1, Hermanus Myburgh3, Robert H Eikelboom1,2,3. 1. Department of Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa. 2. Ear Science Institute Australia, Subiaco, Australia. 3. Ear Sciences Centre, School of Surgery, The University of Western Australia, Nedlands, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Smartphone-based threshold audiometry with automated testing has the potential to provide affordable access to audiometry in underserved contexts. PURPOSE: To validate the threshold version (hearTest) of the validated hearScreen™ smartphone-based application using inexpensive smartphones (Android operating system) and calibrated supra-aural headphones. RESEARCH DESIGN: A repeated measures within-participant study design was employed to compare air-conduction thresholds (0.5-8 kHz) obtained through automated smartphone audiometry to thresholds obtained through conventional audiometry. STUDY SAMPLE: A total of 95 participants were included in the study. Of these, 30 were adults, who had known bilateral hearing losses of varying degrees (mean age = 59 yr, standard deviation [SD] = 21.8; 56.7% female), and 65 were adolescents (mean age = 16.5 yr, SD = 1.2; 70.8% female), of which 61 had normal hearing and the remaining 4 had mild hearing losses. DATA ANALYSIS: Threshold comparisons were made between the two test procedures. The Wilcoxon signed-ranked test was used for comparison of threshold correspondence between manual and smartphone thresholds and the paired samples t test was used to compare test time. RESULTS: Within the adult sample, 94.4% of thresholds obtained through smartphone and conventional audiometry corresponded within 10 dB or less. There was no significant difference between smartphone (6.75-min average, SD = 1.5) and conventional audiometry test duration (6.65-min average, SD = 2.5). Within the adolescent sample, 84.7% of thresholds obtained at 0.5, 2, and 4 kHz with hearTest and conventional audiometry corresponded within ≤5 dB. At 1 kHz, 79.3% of the thresholds differed by ≤10 dB. There was a significant difference (p < 0.01) between smartphone (7.09 min, SD = 1.2) and conventional audiometry test duration (3.23 min, SD = 0.6). CONCLUSIONS: The hearTest application with calibrated supra-aural headphones provides a cost-effective option to determine valid air-conduction hearing thresholds. American Academy of Audiology
BACKGROUND: Smartphone-based threshold audiometry with automated testing has the potential to provide affordable access to audiometry in underserved contexts. PURPOSE: To validate the threshold version (hearTest) of the validated hearScreen™ smartphone-based application using inexpensive smartphones (Android operating system) and calibrated supra-aural headphones. RESEARCH DESIGN: A repeated measures within-participant study design was employed to compare air-conduction thresholds (0.5-8 kHz) obtained through automated smartphone audiometry to thresholds obtained through conventional audiometry. STUDY SAMPLE: A total of 95 participants were included in the study. Of these, 30 were adults, who had known bilateral hearing losses of varying degrees (mean age = 59 yr, standard deviation [SD] = 21.8; 56.7% female), and 65 were adolescents (mean age = 16.5 yr, SD = 1.2; 70.8% female), of which 61 had normal hearing and the remaining 4 had mild hearing losses. DATA ANALYSIS: Threshold comparisons were made between the two test procedures. The Wilcoxon signed-ranked test was used for comparison of threshold correspondence between manual and smartphone thresholds and the paired samples t test was used to compare test time. RESULTS: Within the adult sample, 94.4% of thresholds obtained through smartphone and conventional audiometry corresponded within 10 dB or less. There was no significant difference between smartphone (6.75-min average, SD = 1.5) and conventional audiometry test duration (6.65-min average, SD = 2.5). Within the adolescent sample, 84.7% of thresholds obtained at 0.5, 2, and 4 kHz with hearTest and conventional audiometry corresponded within ≤5 dB. At 1 kHz, 79.3% of the thresholds differed by ≤10 dB. There was a significant difference (p < 0.01) between smartphone (7.09 min, SD = 1.2) and conventional audiometry test duration (3.23 min, SD = 0.6). CONCLUSIONS: The hearTest application with calibrated supra-aural headphones provides a cost-effective option to determine valid air-conduction hearing thresholds. American Academy of Audiology
Authors: Jonathan J Suen; Kaustubh Bhatnagar; Susan D Emmett; Nicole Marrone; Samantha Kleindienst Robler; De Wet Swanepoel; Aileen Wong; Carrie L Nieman Journal: Bull World Health Organ Date: 2019-08-20 Impact factor: 9.408
Authors: Susan Eksteen; Stefan Launer; Hannah Kuper; Robert H Eikelboom; Andrew Bastawrous; De Wet Swanepoel Journal: Bull World Health Organ Date: 2019-06-19 Impact factor: 9.408