Open AccessAdapting Audiology Procedures During the Pandemic: Validity and Efficacy of Testing Outside a Sound Booth
Author(s) -
Yula C. Serpanos,
Melissa Hobbs,
Kariunez,
Lucia Gambino,
Jasmin Butler
Publication year - 2022
Publication title -
american journal of audiology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.688
H-Index - 45
eISSN - 1558-9137
pISSN - 1059-0889
DOI - 10.1044/2021_aja-21-00108
Subject(s) - audiometer , audiology , audiometry , medicine , hearing loss , test (biology) , pure tone audiometry , hearing test , pure tone , paleontology , biology
Purpose: This investigation aims to provide outcomes from a clinical perspective on the validity and efficacy of a wireless automated audiometer system that could be used in multiple settings when a sound booth is not accessible. Testing was conducted in a clinical setting under modified protocols meeting safety precautions during the COVID-19 pandemic. Method: Four doctoral students in audiology served as examiners. Participants were 69 adults between the ages of 20 and 69 years, with normal hearing (≤ 25 dB HL;n = 110 ears) or hearing loss (> 25 dB HL;n = 25 ears). Two versions of a pure-tone air-conduction threshold test following a modified Hughson-Westlake approach were performed and compared at 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, 4000, 6000, and 8000 Hz (a) in a sound-treated test booth using standard manual audiometry and (b) in a quiet, nonsound-treated clinical room (sound booth free) using automated KUDUwave audiometry. Participants were asked to complete a five-item feedback questionnaire, and examiners were interviewed to report on their experience.Results: Clinical validity to within ±10 dB of standard audiometry was demonstrated for 94.5% of the total thresholds (n = 937) measured with the sound booth–free approach. Less accuracy (73.3%) was observed using a ±5 dB comparison. When comparing the mean thresholds, there were significant differences (p < .01) between the mean thresholds at most frequencies, with mean sound booth thresholds being higher than the sound booth–free mean thresholds. A strong threshold correlation (.91–.98) was found between the methods across frequencies. Participant and examiner feedback supported the efficacy of the sound booth–free technology.Conclusions: Findings support sound booth–free, automated software-controlled audiometry with active noise monitoring as a valid and efficient procedure for pure-tone hearing threshold assessment. This method offers an effective alternative when circumstances require more transportable hearing assessment technology or do not allow for standard manual audiometry in a sound booth.