Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 Nov 7;48(1):59.
doi: 10.1186/s40463-019-0385-0.

Adult validation of a self-administered tablet audiometer

Mark Bastianelli  1   2   3   4 , Amy E Mark  5   6 , Arran McAfee  7   8   9 , David Schramm  7   8   9   10   5   11 , Renée Lefrançois  6 , Matthew Bromwich  8   9   10   5   6
Affiliations

Adult validation of a self-administered tablet audiometer

Mark Bastianelli et al. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. .

Abstract

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>.

Keywords: Audiology; Automated audiometry; Hearing loss; Screening audiometry; Tablet audiometry.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Dr. Matthew Bromwich is Co-Founder and Chief Medical Officer SHOEBOX Inc. Amy E Mark holds a joint Clinical Research Associate position with SHOEBOX Inc. and the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario. Renée Lefrançois is the Director of Audiology at SHOEBOX Inc.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Group 2 Bland Altman Plot – Inter-score difference for word recognition scores between tablet and conventional assessments. Dotted lines depict 95% limits of agreement. Mean difference of 0.8 (95% CI 15,-13)
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Group 3 Pure-tone threshold correlation graph for test 1 and test 2. ICC for agreement in both the left and right is 0.98
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Group 3 Bland Altman Plot - Mean differences in pure tone thresholds between repeat assessments. Blue lines depict 95% limits of agreement. Mean difference of 0 (SD = 2.1) on the left, and 0.1 (SD = 1.1) on the right
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Statistics Canada. Canadian Health Measures Survey: Household and Physical Measures Data, 2012 to 2013: Body Mass Index of Children and Youth.; 2014. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/82-625-x/2014001/article/14105-eng.htm.
    1. Statistics Canada. Population Projections for Canada, Provinces and Territories: 2013–2036.; 2014. doi:91–520-X.
    1. Arlinger S. Negative consequences of uncorrected hearing loss - a review. Int J Audiol. 2003;42(2):S17–S20. doi: 10.3109/14992020309074639. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Plack Christopher J., Barker Daphne, Prendergast Garreth. Perceptual Consequences of “Hidden” Hearing Loss. Trends in Hearing. 2014;18:233121651455062. doi: 10.1177/2331216514550621. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ciorba A, Pelucchi S, Pastore A. The impact of hearing loss on the quality of life in adults. Srp Arh Celok Lek. 2012;139(5–6):286–290. doi: 10.2147/cia.s26059. - DOI - PubMed

Associated data