Objective Hearing Screening Measures: An Exploration of a Suitable Combination for Risk-Based Newborn Hearing Screening.

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The ideal hearing screening measure is yet to be defined, with various newborn hearing screening protocols currently being recommended for different contexts. Such diverse recommendations call for further exploration and definition of feasible and context-specific protocols. PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to establish which combinations of audiological screening measures provide both true-positive (TP) and true-negative (TN) results for risk-based hearing screening, at and across time. RESEARCH DESIGN: A longitudinal, repeated-measures design was employed. STUDY SAMPLE Three-hundred and twenty-five participants comprised the initial study sample. These participants comprised newborns and infants who were discharged from the neonatal intensive care unit and high care wards to "step down" wards at two public sector hospitals within an academic hospital complex. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Transient evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAEs), distortion product otoacoustic emissions (DPOAEs), and automated auditory brainstem response (AABR) were conducted at the initial and repeat hearing screening. Diagnostic audiological assessments were also conducted. Results from combinations of audiological screening measures at the initial and repeat hearing screening were analyzed in relation to the final diagnostic outcome (n = 91). Participants were classified as presenting with an overall "refer" if the outcome for any one test was "refer." The overall screening outcomes for different test combinations were compared using McNemar's test for paired data. Proportions across different test combinations were compared by the z-test for proportions. RESULTS: Because of the absence of participants with hearing loss in the current study sample, analysis could only be conducted in relation to TN findings (specificity) and not TP findings (sensitivity). The percentage of TN findings was highest at the repeat hearing screening using any test or combination of tests when compared with findings from the initial hearing screening. TEOAE combined with AABR (TEOAE/AABR) (p < 0.0001), DPOAE combined with AABR (DPOAE/AABR) (p < 0.0001), and the combination of all three screening measures (p < 0.0001) yielded the highest percentage specificity at the repeat hearing screening when compared with the initial hearing screening. CONCLUSIONS: The best specificity was noted at the repeat hearing screening. Within a resource stricken context, where availability of all screening measures options may not be feasible, current study findings suggest the use of a two-stage AABR protocol or TEOAE/AABR protocol.