ORIGINAL ARTICLE
AUDIOMETRIC THRESHOLD MEASUREMENT IN CHILDREN WITH INTELLECTUAL DISABILITY: PREFERRED RESPONSE MODE
 
More details
Hide details
1
Department of Audiology, Ali Yavar Jung National Institute of Speech and Hearing Disabilities (Divyangjan)
A - Research concept and design; B - Collection and/or assembly of data; C - Data analysis and interpretation; D - Writing the article; E - Critical revision of the article; F - Final approval of article;
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Mohammad Shamim Ansari
Mohammad Shamim Ansari, Lecturer (Speech & Hearing), Department of Audiology, AYJNISHD(D), K. C. Marg, Bandra (W), Mumbai-400050, Maharashtra, India
Publication date: 2020-04-09
 
J Hear Sci 2018;8(2):16–21
 
KEYWORDS
ABSTRACT
Background:
The accuracy of pure tone audiometry is important for the success of auditory assessments and in monitoring rehabilitation programs for auditory disorders. Studies have reported that pushing a button as a response mode has a significant effect on pure tone thresholds in subjects with normal and impaired hearing. We therefore assumed that a push-button response mode may negatively impact pure tone threshold measurement in subjects with intellectual disability (ID) owing to their impaired cognition and poor motor coordination. The current study compares in persons with ID the number of presentations, number of false alarms, test duration, and participant preference across three response modes during audiometry.

Material and Methods:
Air-conduction thresholds were measured for each response mode – push button, hand raise, and verbal – at octave intervals between 500 and 2000 Hz in the right ear of 14 children with intellectual disability. The order of the response mode was randomly assigned to three subgroups.

Results:
The results indicated that among ID subjects a verbal response yielded a threshold in significantly less time. There was a significant preference for using the verbal response. Children who were assigned a push button or hand raise also responded with a verbal response. For push button participants, this occurred before the button was pushed and for the hand raising participants, a verbal response occurred before the button push.

Conclusions:
The study finds verbal responses more beneficial in measuring auditory thresholds in children with ID.

 
REFERENCES (24)
1.
Martin FN, Clark JG. Introduction to Audiology (8th ed.), Boston, Pearson Education.
 
2.
Blandy S, Lutman M. Hearing threshold levels and speech recognition in noise in 7-year-olds. Int J Audiol, ;44: 435-43.
 
3.
Margolis RH, Saly GL. Towards a standard description of hearing loss. Int J Audiol, ;46: 746-58.
 
4.
Reger SN. Standardization of pure-tone audiometer testing technique. Laryngoscope, ;60: 161–85.
 
5.
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. Guidelines for manual pure-tone threshold audiometry, Rockville, MD.
 
6.
Dancer J, Ventry IM, Hill W. Effects of stimulus presentation and instructions on pure-tone thresholds and false-alarm responses. J Speech Hear Disord, ; 41: 315-24.
 
7.
Tyler RS, Wood EJ. A comparison of manual methods for measuring hearing levels. Audiology, ;29: 316–29.
 
8.
Dancer JE, Conn M. Effects of two procedural modifications of the frequency of false-alarm responses during pure-tone threshold determination. J Aud Res, ; 23: 215-9.
 
9.
Burk MH, Wiley TL. Continuous versus pulsed tones in audiometry. Am J Audiol, 2004; 13: 54–61.
 
10.
Hochberg I, Waltzman S. Comparison of pulsed and continuous tone thresholds in clients with tinnitus. Audiology, ;11: 337-42.
 
11.
Mineau SM, Schlauch RS. Threshold measurement for clients with tinnitus: pulsed or continuous tones. Am J Audiol, ; 6: 52-6.
 
12.
DiGiovanni JJ, Repka JN. Response method in audiometry. Am J Audiol, ; 16: 145-8.
 
13.
Yantis PA. Pure tone air conduction testing. In: Katz J et al. (eds.), Handbook of Clinical Audiology (4th ed.), Baltimore, MD: Williams &Wilkins.
 
14.
Green DS. Pure tone air conduction thresholds. In Katz J (ed.), Handbook of Clinical Audiology (1st ed.), , pp. 67-86.
 
15.
Mauer JE, Rupp RR. Hearing and Aging: Tactics for intervention, New York: Grune & Stratton.
 
16.
Silman S, Silverman CA Auditory Diagnosis: Principles and applications, 1991. San Diego, Academic Press.
 
17.
Katz J. Handbook of Clinical Audiology (5th ed.), Baltimore, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
 
18.
Algase DL, Beck C, Kolanowski A, Whall A, Berent S, Richards K, Beattie E. Need-driven dementia-compromised behavior: an alternative view of disruptive behavior. Am J Alzheimer Disord, 1996; 5: 10–19.
 
19.
Allen-Burge R, Stevens AB, Burgio LD. Effective behavioral interventions for decreasing dementia-related challenging behavior in nursing homes. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry, ;14: 213–32.
 
20.
Struwig FW, Stead GB. Planning, Designing and Reporting Research, . South Africa: Pearson Education.
 
21.
American National Standards Institute. Specifications for Audiometers (ANSI S3.6-2004), . New York.
 
22.
Carhart R, Jerger J. Preferred methods of determination of pure-tone threshold. In: Hall JW & Meuller HG (eds.). Audiologists’ Desk Reference, San Diego: Singular.
 
23.
Diefendorf AO. Assessment of hearing loss. In: Katz J, Medwetsky , Burkard RF, Hood LJ (eds.), Handbook of Clinical Audiology, Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer Health/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, pp. 545–62.
 
24.
Andersson E, Arlinger S, Magnusson L, Hamrin E. Audiometric screening of a population with intellectual disability. Int J Audiol, ;52(1): 50-56.