J Am Acad Audiol 2019; 30(03): 208-216
DOI: 10.3766/jaaa.17092
Articles
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Reliability of the Home Hearing Test: Implications for Public Health

Cornetta L. Mosley
*   Department of Speech and Hearing Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
,
Lauren M. Langley
*   Department of Speech and Hearing Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
,
Adrian Davis
†   AD Cave Solutions Ltd, London, United Kingdom
,
Catherine M. McMahon
‡   Department of Linguistics, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia
,
Kelly L. Tremblay
*   Department of Speech and Hearing Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
26 May 2020 (online)

Abstract

Background:

The projected increase in the aging population raises concerns about how to manage the health-care needs in a cost-effective way. Within hearing health care, there are presently too few audiologists to meet the expected demand, and training more professionals may not be a feasible way of addressing this problem. For this reason, there is a need to develop different ways of assessing hearing sensitivity that can be conducted accurately and inexpensively when a certified audiologist and/or sound-attenuated booth is unavailable. More specifically, there is a need to determine if the Etymotic Home Hearing Test (HHT) can yield accurate and reliable data from older adults with varying degrees of hearing loss.

Purpose:

To compare audiometric thresholds obtained using the HHT, an automated pure-tone air-conduction test, to those obtained using manual audiometry (MA), among older adults with varying degrees of hearing loss.

Study Sample:

Participants were 112 English-speaking adults (58% Female), aged 60 yr and older. Participants were excluded from this study if otoscopy revealed cerumen impaction and/or suspected ear pathology.

Intervention:

All participants completed the HHT on tablet computers in a carpeted classroom and MA in a double-walled sound-attenuated booth using insert earphones for both measures. Both measures were completed in the same test session, and the order of testing (MA versus HHT) was counterbalanced.

Data Collection and Analysis:

Absolute differences in threshold measurements (in dB HL) were calculated across all ears (n = 224 ears) and for all frequencies (octave frequencies from 0.5 to 8 kHz). Correlation and multiple linear regression analyses were conducted to determine if thresholds obtained using the HHT significantly correlated with thresholds using MA. Mean thresholds for each method (HHT and MA) were compared using correlation analyses for each test frequency. Multiple linear regression analysis was used to examine the relationship between the four-frequency pure-tone average (PTA) (average threshold at 0.5, 1, 2, and 4 kHz) in the better-hearing ear measured using the HHT and a set of seven independent factors: four-frequency PTA in the better-hearing ear measured via MA, treatment group (HHT versus MA), age, gender, and degree of hearing loss (mild, moderate, and >moderate).

Results:

Correlation analyses revealed significant frequency-specific correlations, ranging from 0.91 to 0.97 (p < 0.001), for air-conduction thresholds obtained using the HHT and MA. Mean HHT thresholds were significantly correlated with mean MA thresholds in both ears across the frequency range. This relationship held true across different degrees of hearing loss. The regression model accounted for a significant amount of variance in the HHT better-ear PTA, with MA better-ear PTA being the only significant predictor in our final model, with no effect of degree of loss, age, or gender.

Conclusions:

The HHT is an accurate and cost-effective method of establishing pure-tone air-conduction thresholds, when compared with MA. Therefore, the HHT can be used as a tool to acquire accurate air-conduction hearing thresholds from older adults, in-group settings, without the use of a sound-attenuated booth or a certified audiologist.

This study was supported by the National Institutes of Health-National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (NIH NIDCD R21DC013161).


 
  • REFERENCES

  • American Speech-Language Hearing Association (ASHA) 1997; Guidelines for audiologic screening. ASHA 1-63
  • Bexelius C, Honeth L, Ekman A, Eriksson M, Sandin S, Bagger-Sjöbäck D, Litton JE. 2008; Evaluation of an internet-based hearing test—comparison with established methods for detection of hearing loss. J Med Internet Res 10 (04) e32
  • Bright T, Pallawela D. 2016; Validated smartphone-based apps for ear and hearing assessments: a review. JMIR Rehabil Assist Technol 3 (02) e13
  • Clark JG. 1981; Uses and abuses of hearing loss classification. ASHA 23 (07) 493-500
  • Clark JL, Swanepoel W. 2014; Technology for hearing loss—as we know it, and as we dream it. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 9 (05) 408-413
  • Davis A, McMahon CM, Pichora-Fuller KM, Russ S, Lin F, Olusanya BO, Chadha S, Tremblay KL. 2016; Aging and hearing health: the life-course approach. Gerontologist 56 (Suppl 2) S256-S267
  • Davis A, Smith P. 2013; Adult hearing screening: health policy issues—what happens next?. Am J Audiol 22 (01) 167-170
  • Davis A, Smith P, Ferguson M, Stephens D, Gianopoulos I. 2007; Acceptability, benefit and costs of early screening for hearing disability: a study of potential screening tests and models. Health Technol Assess 11 (42) 1-294
  • Etymotic Research, Inc 2016 https://www.etymotic.com/consumer/accessories/er4.html . Accessed June 20, 2017
  • Fagan JJ, Jacobs M. (2009) Survey of ENT services in Africa: need for a comprehensive intervention. Glob Health Action 2. https://doi.org/10.3402/gha.v2i0.1932
  • Folmer RL, Vachhani J, McMillan GP, Watson C, Kidd GR, Feeney MP. 2017; Validation of a computer-administered version of the digits-in-noise test for hearing screening in the United States. J Am Acad Audiol 28 (02) 161-169
  • Goulios H, Patuzzi RB. 2008; Audiology education and practice from an international perspective. Int J Audiol 47 (10) 647-664
  • Handzel O, Ben-Ari O, Damian D, Priel MM, Cohen J, Himmelfarb M. 2013; Smartphone-based hearing test as an aid in the initial evaluation of unilateral sudden sensorineural hearing loss. Audiol Neurootol 18 (04) 201-207
  • He W, Goodkind D, Kowal P. 2016. An Aging World: 2015. U.S. Census Bureau, International Population Reports, P95/16-1. Washington DC: U.S. Government Publishing Office;
  • iHEAR Medical 2016 iHear Test. http://www.ihearmedical.com/ihear-test/ . Accessed April 21, 2017
  • Kelly T, Minges M. 2012. Exclusive Summary. Washington DC: World Bank;
  • Krumm M, Ribera J, Klich R. 2007; Providing basic hearing tests using remote computing technology. J Telemed Telecare 13 (08) 406-410
  • Margolis RH, Glasberg BR, Creeke S, Moore BCJ. 2010; AMTAS: automated method for testing auditory sensitivity: validation studies. Int J Audiol 49 (03) 185-194
  • Margolis RH, Killion MC, Bratt GW, Saly GL. 2016; Validation of the home hearing test™. J Am Acad Audiol 27 (05) 416-420
  • Margolis RH, Morgan DE. 2008; Automated pure-tone audiometry: an analysis of capacity, need, and benefit. Am J Audiol 17 (02) 109-113
  • Margolis RH, Saly GL, Le C, Laurence J. 2007; Qualind: a method for assessing the accuracy of automated tests. J Am Acad Audiol 18 (01) 78-89
  • Mathers CD, Loncar D. 2006; Projections of global mortality and burden of disease from 2002 to 2030. PLoS Med 3 (11) e442
  • Meyer C, Hickson L, Khan A, Hartley D, Dillon H, Seymour J. 2011; Investigation of the actions taken by adults who failed a telephone-based hearing screen. Ear Hear 32 (06) 720-731
  • Smits C, Kapteyn TS, Houtgast T. 2004; Development and validation of an automatic speech-in-noise screening test by telephone. Int J Audiol 43 (01) 15-28
  • Swanepoel W, Hall 3rd JW. 2010; A systematic review of telehealth applications in audiology. Telemed J E Health 16 (02) 181-200
  • Swanepoel W, Myburgh HC, Howe DM, Mahomed F, Eikelboom RH. 2014; Smartphone hearing screening with integrated quality control and data management. Int J Audiol 53 (12) 841-849
  • Szudek J, Ostevik A, Dziegielewski P, Robinson-Anagor J, Gomaa N, Hodgetts B, Ho A. 2012; Can U hear me now? Validation of an iPod-based hearing loss screening test. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 41 (Suppl 1) S78-S84
  • Vos T, Allen C, Arora M. et al. 2016; Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 310 diseases and injuries, 1990–2015: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015. Lancet 388 (10053) 1545-1602
  • Watson CS, Kidd GR, Miller JD, Smits C, Humes LE. 2012; Telephone screening tests for functionally impaired hearing: current use in seven countries and development of a US version. J Am Acad Audiol 23 (10) 757-767
  • Williams-Sanchez V, McArdle RA, Wilson RH, Kidd GR, Watson CS, Bourne AL. 2014; Validation of a screening test of auditory function using the telephone. J Am Acad Audiol 25 (10) 937-951
  • Windmill IM, Freeman BA. 2013; Demand for audiology services: 30-yr projections and impact on academic programs. J Am Acad Audiol 24 (05) 407-416
  • World Health Organization (WHO) 2013. Millions of People in the World Have a Hearing Loss That Can Be Treated or Prevented. Geneva, Switzerland: http://0-www.who.int.innopac.up.ac.za/pbd/deafness/news/Millionslivewithhearingloss.pdf?ua
  • World Health Organization (WHO) 2017 Metrics: Disability-Adjusted Life Year (DALY). Geneva, Switzerland: http://www.who.int/healthinfo/global_burden_disease/metrics_daly/en/
  • Yousuf Hussein S, Wet Swanepoel D, Biagio de Jager L, Myburgh HC, Eikelboom RH, Hugo J. 2016; Smartphone hearing screening in mHealth assisted community-based primary care. J Telemed Telecare 22 (07) 405-412
  • Yueh B, Collins MP, Souza PE, Boyko EJ, Loovis CF, Heagerty PJ, Liu CF, Hedrick SC. 2010; Long-term effectiveness of screening for hearing loss: the screening for auditory impairment—which hearing assessment test (SAI-WHAT) randomized trial. J Am Geriatr Soc 58 (03) 427-434