Tutorial  |   June 2012
The Challenge of Detecting Minimal Hearing Loss in Audiometric Surveys
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Edward Carney
    University of Minnesota, Minneapolis
  • Correspondence to Robert S. Schlauch: schla001@umn.edu
  • Editor: Sheila Pratt
    Editor: Sheila Pratt×
  • Associate Editor: Brad Rakerd
    Associate Editor: Brad Rakerd×
Hearing Disorders / Tutorial
Tutorial   |   June 2012
The Challenge of Detecting Minimal Hearing Loss in Audiometric Surveys
American Journal of Audiology June 2012, Vol.21, 106-119. doi:10.1044/1059-0889(2012/11-0012)
History: Accepted 17 Jan 2012 , Received 28 Mar 2011 , Revised 04 Aug 2011
American Journal of Audiology June 2012, Vol.21, 106-119. doi:10.1044/1059-0889(2012/11-0012)
History: Accepted 17 Jan 2012 , Received 28 Mar 2011 , Revised 04 Aug 2011

Purpose: This tutorial provides framework and context for understanding the complex interaction of hearing measurement methodology and cohort social factors, as well as their relation to approaches to data interpretation and identification of minimal hearing loss (HL) in audiometric surveys.

Method: Pertinent archival studies were reviewed, and an original analysis on U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) audiometric survey data from children (ages 6–19) was performed.

Conclusion: The definition of an otologically normal individual, the pass–fail criterion representing the upper limit of the range of normal hearing, and the quality of the audiometry affect the percentage of persons who are falsely identified as having a minimal HL. An upper limit of normal hearing of 15 dB HL yields an unacceptably high false-positive rate, particularly when the more variable higher audiometric frequencies are examined. When air-conduction thresholds are assessed in isolation to estimate potential noise damage, the failure to exclude persons who have possible middle and external ear problems, including earwax, results in high false-positive rates. When these factors and other limitations are considered, audiograms from teens from a recent CDC survey do not show evidence consistent with widespread noise-induced HL. Suggestions are made to improve the effectiveness of pure-tone audiometry and the identification of minimal HL.

Order a Subscription
Pay Per View
Entire American Journal of Audiology content & archive
24-hour access
This Article
24-hour access

Related Articles

Professional Preparedness for Provision of Auditory Oral Programs to Children With Hearing Loss: Results of a Survey
SIG 7 Perspectives on Aural Rehabilitation and Its Instrumentation April 2008, Vol.15, 18-28. doi:10.1044/arii15.1.18
Evaluating Families' Satisfaction With Early Hearing Detection and Intervention Services in Massachusetts
American Journal of Audiology June 2007, Vol.16, 29-56. doi:10.1044/1059-0889(2007/004)
A Survey of Professionals Delivering Speech-Language Services to Children With Hearing Loss
Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools April 1994, Vol.25, 100-104. doi:10.1044/0161-1461.2502.100
State and Territory EHDI Databases: What We Do and Don't Know About the Hearing or Audiological Data From Identified Children
American Journal of Audiology March 2014, Vol.23, 34-43. doi:10.1044/1059-0889(2013/13-0015)
Coordinator’s Column
SIG 14 Perspectives on Communication Disorders and Sciences in Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CLD) Populations October 2011, Vol.18, 55-56. doi:10.1044/cds18.3.55