Download PDF
J Am Acad Audiol 2018; 29(03): 206-222
DOI: 10.3766/jaaa.16128
Articles
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

An Argument for Self-Report as a Reference Standard in Audiology

Andrew J. Vermiglio
*   Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC
,
Sigfrid D. Soli
†   House Clinic, Los Angeles, CA
,
Xiangming Fang
‡   Department of Biostatistics, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
29 May 2020 (online)

Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background:

The primary components of a diagnostic accuracy study are an index test, the target condition (or disorder), and a reference standard. According to the Standards for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy statement, the reference standard should be the best method available to independently determine if the results of an index test are correct. Pure-tone thresholds have been used as the “gold standard” for the validation of some tests used in audiology. Many studies, however, have shown a lack of agreement between the audiogram and the patient’s perception of hearing ability. For example, patients with normal audiograms may report difficulty understanding speech in the presence of background noise.

Purpose:

The primary purpose of this article is to present an argument for the use of self-report as a reference standard for diagnostic studies in the field of audiology. This will be in the form of a literature review on pure-tone threshold measures and self-report as reference standards. The secondary purpose is to determine the diagnostic accuracy of pure-tone threshold and Hearing-in-Noise Test (HINT) measures for the detection of a speech-recognition-in-noise disorder.

Research Design:

Two groups of participants with normal pure-tone thresholds were evaluated. The King–Kopetzky syndrome (KKS) group was made up of participants with the self-report of speech-recognition-in-noise difficulties. The control group was made up of participants with no reports of speech-recognition-in-noise problems. The reference standard was self-report. Diagnostic accuracy of HINT and pure-tone threshold measures was determined by measuring group differences, sensitivity and specificity, and the area under the curve (AUC) for receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves.

Study Sample:

Forty-seven participants were tested. All participants were native speakers of American English. Twenty-two participants were in the control group and 25 in the KKS group. The groups were matched for age.

Data Collection and Analysis:

Pure-tone threshold data were collected using the Hughson–Westlake procedure. Speech-recognition-in-noise data was collected using a software system and the standard HINT protocol. Statistical analyses were conducted using descriptive, correlational, two-sample t tests, and logistic regression.

Results:

The literature review revealed that self-report has been used as a reference standard in investigations of patients with normal audiograms and the perception of difficulty understanding speech in the presence of background noise. Self-report may be a better indicator of hearing ability than pure-tone thresholds in some situations. The diagnostic accuracy investigation revealed statistically significant differences between control and KKS groups for HINT performance (p < 0.01), but not for pure-tone threshold measures. Better sensitivity was found for the HINT Composite score (88%) than pure-tone average (PTA; 28%). The specificities for the HINT Composite score and PTA were 77% and 95%, respectively. ROC curves revealed a greater AUC for the HINT Composite score (AUC = 0.87) than for PTA (AUC = 0.51).

Conclusion:

Self-report is a reasonable reference standard for studies on the diagnostic accuracy of speech-recognition-in-noise tests. For individuals with normal pure-tone thresholds, the HINT demonstrated a higher degree of diagnostic accuracy than pure-tone thresholds for the detection of speech-recognition-in-noise disorder.

Key Words

audiogram - auditory - central auditory processing disorder - clinical entity - diagnostic accuracy - gold standard - pure-tone thresholds reference standard - self-report - sensitivity - specificity - speech recognition in noise - STARD statement - Sydenham–Guttentag criteria - target condition - target disorder
 

  • REFERENCES

  • American Academy of Otolaryngology (AAO) 1979; Guide for the evaluation of hearing handicap. JAMA 241 (19) 2055-2059
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Alvord LS. 1983; Cochlear dysfunction in “normal-hearing” patients with history of noise exposure. Ear Hear 4 (05) 247-250
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Anderson S, Parbery-Clark A, White-Schwoch T, Kraus N. 2013; Auditory brainstem response to complex sounds predicts self-reported speech-in-noise performance. J Speech Lang Hear Res 56 (01) 31-43
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Anderson S, Skoe E, Chandrasekaran B, Kraus N. 2010; Neural timing is linked to speech perception in noise. J Neurosci 30 (14) 4922-4926
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Baiduc RR, Poling GL, Hong O, Dhar S. 2013; Clinical measures of auditory function: the cochlea and beyond. Dis Mon 59 (04) 147-156
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Beasley WC. 1940; Characteristics and distribution of impaired hearing in the population of the United States. J Acoust Soc Am 12: 114
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Bench J, Kowal A, Bamford J. 1979; The BKB (Bamford-Kowal-Bench) sentence lists for partially-hearing children. Br J Audiol 13 (03) 108-112
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Berkson J. 1947; Cost-utility as a measure of the efficiency of a test. J Am Stat Assoc 42 (238) 246-255
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Berlin CI. 2012 Auditory neuropathy spectrum disorder, OAEs, ABR, and more. www.audiology.org/news/interview-charles-berlin-phd . Accessed August 25, 2016
    Google Scholar
  • Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, Gatsonis CA, Glasziou PP, Irwig LM, Moher D, Rennie D, de Vet HC, Lijmer JG. Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Group 2003; The STARD statement for reporting studies of diagnostic accuracy: explanation and elaboration. Croat Med J 44 (05) 639-650
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Buffett WE. 1984 The Superinvestors of Graham-and-Doddsville. Hermes: the Columbia Business School Magazine 4-15
    Google Scholar
  • Bunch CC. 1929; Age variations in auditory acuity. Arch Otolaryngol 9: 625-636
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Carhart R. 1951; Basic principles of speech audiometry. Acta Otolaryngol 40 1–2 62-71
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Chandrasekhar SS, Brackmann DE, Devgan KK. 1995; Utility of auditory brainstem response audiometry in diagnosis of acoustic neuromas. Am J Otol 16 (01) 63-67
    Google Scholar
  • Dadson RS, King JH. 1952; A determination of the normal threshold of hearing and its relation to the standardization of audiometers. J Laryngol Otol 66 (08) 366-378
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Dobie RA. 2011; The AMA method of estimation of hearing disability: a validation study. Ear Hear 32 (06) 732-740
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Etymotic 2005. Bamford-Kowal-Bench Speech-in-Noise Test (Version 1.03) [Audio CD]. Elk Grove Village, IL: Etymotic Research;
    Google Scholar
  • Food and Drug Administration, US (FDA) 2000 Division of Neuropharmacological Drug Products (DNDP) Issues Paper for March 9, 2000, Meeting of the Psychopharmacological Drugs Advisory Committee Meeting on the Various Psychiatric and Behavioral Disturbances Associated with Dementia. www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/00n0088/bkg0001.pdf . Accessed September 20, 2013
  • Fry DB. 1942; A suggestion for a new method of testing hearing in aviation candidates. J Laryngol Otol 57 (01) 11-13
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Fry DB. 1961; Word and sentence tests for use in speech audiometry. Lancet 2 7195 197-199
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Glorig A. 1956; Determination of the normal hearing reference zero. J Acoust Soc Am 28 (06) 1110-1113
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Guttentag OE. 1949; On the clinical entity. Ann Intern Med 31 (03) 484-496
    Google Scholar
  • Guttentag OE. 1950; Two diagrams on the clinical entity. J Pediatr 37 (04) 530-534
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Hannula S, Bloigu R, Majamaa K, Sorri M, Mäki-Torkko E. 2011; Self-reported hearing problems among older adults: prevalence and comparison to measured hearing impairment. J Am Acad Audiol 22 (08) 550-559
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Hinchcliffe R. 1961; Prevalence of the commoner ear, nose, and throat conditions in the adult rural population of Great Britain. A study by direct examination of two random samples. Br J Prev Soc Med 15: 128-140
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Hinchcliffe R. 1992; King-Kopetzky syndrome: an auditory stress disorder?. J Audiol Med 1: 89-98
    Google Scholar
  • House JW, Waluch V, Jackler RK. 1986; Magnetic resonance imaging in acoustic neuroma diagnosis. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 95 1 Pt 1 16-20
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Jerger J. 2009. Audiology in the USA. San Diego, CA: Plural Publishing;
    Google Scholar
  • Johnston KN, John AB, Kreisman NV, Hall 3rd JW, Crandell CC. 2009; Multiple benefits of personal FM system use by children with auditory processing disorder (APD). Int J Audiol 48 (06) 371-383
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Kiely KM, Gopinath B, Mitchell P, Browning CJ, Anstey KJ. 2012; Evaluating a dichotomized measure of self-reported hearing loss against gold standard audiometry: prevalence estimates and age bias in a pooled national data set. J Aging Health 24 (03) 439-458
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Killion MC, Niquette PA, Gudmundsen GI, Revit LJ, Banerjee S. 2004; Development of a quick speech-in-noise test for measuring signal-to-noise ratio loss in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 116 4 Pt 1 2395-2405
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • King PF. 1954; a Psychogenic deafness. J Laryngol Otol 68 (09) 623-635
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • King PF. 1954; b Psychogenic deafness [Abstract]. Proc R Soc Med 47 (11) 941-942
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Koole A, Nagtegaal AP, Homans NC, Hofman A, Baatenburg de Jong RJ, Goedegebure A. 2016; Using the Digits-In-Noise Test to estimate age-related hearing loss. Ear Hear 37 (05) 508-513
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Kuk F, Jackson A, Keenan D, Lau CC. 2008; Personal amplification for school-age children with auditory processing disorders. J Am Acad Audiol 19 (06) 465-480
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Lane CE. 1922; Minimum sound energy for audition for tones of high frequency. Phys Rev 19: 492
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Liberman MC, Epstein MJ, Cleveland SS, Wang H, Maison SF. 2016; Toward a differential diagnosis of hidden hearing loss in humans. PLoS One 11 (09) e0162726
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Lutman ME, Saunders GH. 1992; Lack of association between otoacoustic emissions and hearing difficulty in subjects with normal hearing thresholds. J Acoust Soc Am 92 2 Pt 1 1184-1185
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Manne SL, Jacobsen PB, Redd WH. 1992; Assessment of acute pediatric pain: do child self-report, parent ratings, and nurse ratings measure the same phenomenon?. Pain 48 (01) 45-52
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Martin FN, Champlin CA. 2000; Reconsidering the limits of normal hearing. J Am Acad Audiol 11 (02) 64-66
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Maslow AH. 1966. The Psychology of Science: A Reconnaissance. Chapel Hill, NC: Maurice Bassett Publishing;
    Google Scholar
  • Mendel LL. 2007; Objective and subjective hearing aid assessment outcomes. Am J Audiol 16 (02) 118-129
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Merluzzi F, Hinchcliffe R. 1973; Threshold of subjective auditory handicap. Audiology 12 (02) 65-69
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Merriam-Webster Dictionary 2016 Definition of subjective in English. www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/subjective . Accessed January 22, 2017
    Google Scholar
  • Meyer-Bisch C. 1996; Audioscan: a high-definition audiometry technique based on constant-level frequency sweeps--a new method with new hearing indicators. Audiology 35 (02) 63-72
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Meynell GG. 2006; John Locke and the preface to Thomas Sydenham’s Observationes medicae. Med Hist 50 (01) 93-110
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Middelweerd MJ, Festen JM, Plomp R. 1990; Difficulties with speech intelligibility in noise in spite of a normal pure-tone audiogram. Audiology 29 (01) 1-7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • National Institutes of Health (NIH) 1938. Hearing Study Series: Normal Hearing for Speech at Each Decade of Life. Washington, DC: NIH;
    Google Scholar
  • Nilsson M, Soli SD, Sullivan JA. 1994; Development of the Hearing in Noise Test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise. J Acoust Soc Am 95 (02) 1085-1099
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Niquette P, Arcaroli J, Revit L, Parkinson A, Staller S, Skinner M, Killion M. 2003 Development of the BKB-SIN Test. Paper presented at the American Auditory Socitey, Scottsdale, AZ
    Google Scholar
  • Noble W. 1988; Evaluation of hearing handicap: a critique of Ward’s position. Audiology 27 (01) 53-64
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Nondahl DM, Cruickshanks KJ, Wiley TL, Tweed TS, Klein R, Klein BE. 1998; Accuracy of self-reported hearing loss. Audiology 37 (05) 295-301
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Palmer CV, Solodar HS, Hurley WR, Byrne DC, Williams KO. 2009; Self-perception of hearing ability as a strong predictor of hearing aid purchase. J Am Acad Audiol 20 (06) 341-347
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Peterson WW, Birdsall TG, Fox WC. 1954; The theory of signal detectability. Trans IRE Profession Group Inform Theory 4 (04) 171-212
    Google Scholar
  • Plomp R. 1978; Auditory handicap of hearing impairment and the limited benefit of hearing aids. J Acoust Soc Am 63 (02) 533-549
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Plomp R. 1986; A signal-to-noise ratio model for the speech-reception threshold of the hearing impaired. J Speech Hear Res 29 (02) 146-154
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Plomp R, Mimpen AM. 1979; Improving the reliability of testing the speech reception threshold for sentences. Audiology 18 (01) 43-52
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Pryce H, Metcalfe C, Hall A, Claire LS. 2010; Illness perceptions and hearing difficulties in King-Kopetzky syndrome: what determines help seeking?. Int J Audiol 49 (07) 473-481
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Rappaport JM, Phillips DP, Gulliver JM. 1993; Disturbed speech intelligibility in noise despite a normal audiogram: a defect in temporal resolution?. J Otolaryngol 22 (06) 447-453
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Saunders GH, Forsline A. 2006; The Performance-Perceptual Test (PPT) and its relationship to aided reported handicap and hearing aid satisfaction. Ear Hear 27 (03) 229-242
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Saunders GH, Forsline A, Fausti SA. 2004; The performance-perceptual test and its relationship to unaided reported handicap. Ear Hear 25 (02) 117-126
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Saunders GH, Haggard MP. 1989; The clinical assessment of obscure auditory dysfunction--1. Auditory and psychological factors. Ear Hear 10 (03) 200-208
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Shargorodsky J, Curhan SG, Curhan GC, Eavey R. 2010; Change in prevalence of hearing loss in US adolescents. JAMA 304 (07) 772-778
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Sindhusake D, Mitchell P, Smith W, Golding M, Newall P, Hartley D, Rubin G. 2001; Validation of self-reported hearing loss. The Blue Mountains Hearing Study. Int J Epidemiol 30 (06) 1371-1378
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Sivian LJ, White SD. 1933; On minimum audible sound fields. J Acoust Soc Am 4: 288-321
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Soli SD, Wong LL. 2008; Assessment of speech intelligibility in noise with the Hearing in Noise Test. Int J Audiol 47 (06) 356-361
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Steinberg JC, Montgomery HC, Gardner MB. 1940; Results of the World’s Fair hearing tests. J Acoust Soc Am 12: 533-562
    Google Scholar
  • Stilma W, Rijkenberg S, Feijen HM, Maaskant JM, Endeman H. 2015 Validation of the Dutch version of the critical-care pain observation tool. Nurs Crit Care
    Google Scholar
  • Sweetow RW, Sabes JH. 2006; The need for and development of an adaptive Listening and Communication Enhancement (LACE) Program. J Am Acad Audiol 17 (08) 538-558
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Swets JA. 1988; Measuring the accuracy of diagnostic systems. Science 240 4857 1285-1293
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Swets JA, Dawes RM, Monahan J. 2000; Better decisions through science. Sci Am 283 (04) 82-87
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Tremblay KL, Pinto A, Fischer ME, Klein BE, Klein R, Levy S, Tweed TS, Cruickshanks KJ. 2015; Self-reported hearing difficulties among adults with normal audiograms: the beaver dam offspring study. Ear Hear 36 (06) e290-e299
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Vermiglio AJ. 2008; The American English hearing in noise test. Int J Audiol 47 (06) 386-387
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Vermiglio AJ. 2014; On the clinical entity in audiology: (central) auditory processing and speech recognition in noise disorders. J Am Acad Audiol 25 (09) 904-917
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Vermiglio AJ. 2016; On diagnostic accuracy in audiology: central site of lesion and central auditory processing disorder studies. J Am Acad Audiol 27 (02) 141-156
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Vermiglio AJ, Soli SD, Freed DJ, Fisher LM. 2012; The relationship between high-frequency pure-tone hearing loss, hearing in noise test (HINT) thresholds, and the articulation index. J Am Acad Audiol 23 (10) 779-788
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Ward WD. 1983; The American Medical Association/American Academy of Otolaryngology formula for determination of hearing handicap. Audiology 22 (04) 313-324
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Wheeler LJ, Dickson ED. 1952; The determination of the threshold of hearing. J Laryngol Otol 66 (08) 379-395
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Wilson RH. 2003; Development of a speech-in-multitalker-babble paradigm to assess word-recognition performance. J Am Acad Audiol 14 (09) 453-470
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Wilson RH, Burks CA. 2005; Use of 35 words for evaluation of hearing loss in signal-to-babble ratio: a clinic protocol. J Rehabil Res Dev 42 (06) 839-852
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Wilson RH, Margolis RH. 2015; Hearing loss terminology should be evidence based: a reply to Clark and Martin (2014). J Am Acad Audiol 26 (05) 524-525
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Wilson RH, McArdle RA, Smith SL. 2007; An evaluation of the BKB-SIN, HINT, QuickSIN, and WIN materials on listeners with normal hearing and listeners with hearing loss. J Speech Lang Hear Res 50 (04) 844-856
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Zecker SG, Hoffman HJ, Frisina R, Dubno JR, Dhar S, Wallhagen M, Kraus N, Griffith JW, Walton JP, Eddins DA, Newman C, Victorson D, Warrier CM, Wilson RH. 2013; Audition assessment using the NIH Toolbox. Neurology 80 (11) (Suppl 3) S45-S48
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Zhao F, Stephens D. 1999; Audioscan testing in patients with King-Kopetzky syndrome. Acta Otolaryngol 119 (03) 306-310
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Zhao F, Stephens D. 2006; Distortion product otoacoustic emissions in patients with King-Kopetzky syndrome. Int J Audiol 45 (01) 34-39
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Zuehl BF. 1922; Measurement of auditory acuity with the Iowa pitch range audiometer. Psychol Monogr 31 (01) 83-97
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar