Consistency in Latency Measurements and Interpretation of ABR Tracings Multichannel ABR recordings for 30 otoneurologic patients were reviewed independently by three audiologists to assess interjudge consistency in determining absolute latencies and overall interpretation of ABR results. Four months later, the tracings were reviewed a second time to evaluate intrajudge consistency in interpretation of ABR waveforms. Interjudge agreement in marking ... Research Article
Research Article  |   March 01, 1997
Consistency in Latency Measurements and Interpretation of ABR Tracings
 
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Wayne O. Olsen
    Section of Audiology, Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905
  • Terri L. Pratt
    Section of Audiology, Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905
  • Christopher D. Bauch
    Section of Audiology, Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905
Article Information
Hearing Disorders / Research Articles
Research Article   |   March 01, 1997
Consistency in Latency Measurements and Interpretation of ABR Tracings
American Journal of Audiology, March 1997, Vol. 6, 57-62. doi:10.1044/1059-0889.0601.57
History: Received November 9, 1995 , Accepted April 22, 1996
 
American Journal of Audiology, March 1997, Vol. 6, 57-62. doi:10.1044/1059-0889.0601.57
History: Received November 9, 1995; Accepted April 22, 1996

Multichannel ABR recordings for 30 otoneurologic patients were reviewed independently by three audiologists to assess interjudge consistency in determining absolute latencies and overall interpretation of ABR results. Four months later, the tracings were reviewed a second time to evaluate intrajudge consistency in interpretation of ABR waveforms. Interjudge agreement in marking latencies for waves I, III, and V within 0.2 ms was on the order of 90% or better. Intrajudge consistency was slightly higher. Only rarely did inter- or intrajudge differences in latency measurements exceed 0.3 ms. Agreement in overall interpretation of ABR results as "normal" or "abnormal" was unanimous for 90% of the patients. Across pairs of judges, the agreement for "normal" and "abnormal" classification of the ABR tracings was 97%. Intrajudge consistency for "normal" and "abnormal" categorization of the ABR results was 100% for one judge, 97% for the other two judges.

Acknowledgment
Portions of these data were presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Research in Otolaryngology in St. Petersburg Beach, FL, February 5–9, 1995.
Order a Subscription
Pay Per View
Entire American Journal of Audiology content & archive
24-hour access
This Article
24-hour access