Abstract
Pure tone hearing screening test is the most widely used method for detecting hearing impairment. To avoid false positive results, the test needs to be conducted in a quiet environment with ambient noise levels
lesser than the maximum permissible noise levels specied by ANSI. Such an environment is not available in the rural areas of India. As per census 2011, 49% of the persons with hearing impairment in India live in rural areas, which emphasize the need to conduct hearing screening in rural locations. No attempts have been made yet to document the ambient noise levels in these rural locations and to nd out how these noise levels in uence the test results. The present study was an eort to measure the ambient noise levels in three of such locations and to nd the eect of these noise levels on the outcome of the hearing screening test conducted on 15 participants at each of these locations. The selected locations were found to have average ambient noise levels of 58.3, 60.1 and 64.8 dBSPL, which were higher than the ambient noise levels reported in the previous studies. Results showed very low specicity at 500Hz test frequency at all the three locations when the pass criterion was 25 dBHL while it was 80%
when the pass criterion was 30 dBHL. 100% specicity was observed at all other test frequencies, at all the three locations. Outcome of the study will help to precisely organize hearing screening programs in Indian rural areas.
References
opment of online system for hearing screening. Project
funded by AIISH Research Fund, All India Institute of
Speech and Hearing, Mysore, India
American National Standards Institute (2003). Maximum
permissible ambient noise levels for audiometric test
rooms (Rev. ed.) (ANSI S3.1-1999). New York.
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (1997).
Guidelines for Audiologic Screening. www.asha.org/
policy.
Bromwich, M.A., Parsa, V., Lanthier, N., & Yoo, J. (2008).
Active Noise Reduction Audiometry: A Prospective
Analysis of a New Approach to Noise Management
in Audiometric Testing. Laryngoscope, 118, 104-
109.
Census (2011). retrieved from http://www.abs.gov.au/
websitedbs/censushome.nsf/home/data.
Hallett, C.P., & Gibbs, A. C. C. (1983). The E ect of Ambi-
ent Noise and Other Variables on Pure Tone Threshold
Screening in a Population of Primary School Entrants.
British Journal of Audiology, 17, 183-190.
Kam, A. C. S., Gao, H., Li, L. K. C., Zhao, H., Qui, S., &
Tong, M. C. F. (2013). Automated hearing screening for
children: A pilot study in China. International Journal
of Audiology, 52, 855 - 860.
Kam, A. C. S., Li, L. K. C., Yeung, K. N. K., Wu, W.,
Huang, Z., Wu, H., & Tong, M. C. F. (2014). Auto-
mated hearing screening for preschool children. Journal
of Medical Screening, 21(2), 71-75.
Lo, A., & McPherson, B. (2013). Hearing screening for
school children: utility of noise-cancelling headphones.
BMC Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders, 13, 6.
Sabo, M.P., Winston, R., & Macias, J.D. (2000). Com-
parison of pure tone and transient otoacoustic emissions
screening in a grade school population. American Jour-
nal of Otology, 21(1), 88-91.
Sideris, I., & Glattke, T. J. (2006). A comparison of two
methods of hearing screening in the preschool popula-
tion. Journal of Communication Disorders, 39, 391-
401.
Walker, J. J., Cleveland, L. M., Davis, J. L., & Seales, J.
S. (2013). Audiometry screening and interpretation .
American Family Physician, 87, 41-48.
Weyers, C., & de Jager, L. (2004). The in
uence of the au-
diometric test environment on screening audiometry re-
sults. Journal of Occupational Health Southern Africa,
10(3). http://www.occhealth.co.za/?/viewArticle/780
Wong, T. W., Yu, T. S., Chen, W. Q., Chiu, Y. L., Wong, C.
N., & Wong, A. H. (2003).Agreement between hearing
thresholds. Occupational and Environmental medicine,
60(9), 667-671.