Tablet-Based Hearing Test Among Child Clinical Populations: Performance and Preference.

Background and Introduction: Tablet-based automated audiometry applications are a recent alternative method to perform pure-tone hearing testing. Children, in particular, might benefit from such apps because of the game-like interface. However, how children perceive this alternative approach has not been well studied. This study examined children's preference of hearing test and a relationship between their test preference and hearing test results. Materials and Methods: Forty children 6-12 years of age completed a pure-tone hearing test in both the tablet-based automated (tablet) method and the conventional method. Hearing thresholds were measured at 0.5, 1, 2, 4, 6, and 8 kHz in each ear. An exit interview was conducted to obtain each child's test preference. Results: We found that 59% of the children preferred the tablet method when compared to the conventional method. Preference to the tablet method was stronger in the younger children (6 years) than older children (7-12 years). The linear regression analyses suggest that test preference does not affect the hearing test results in the conventional method, but does negatively affect the results in the tablet method. In addition, poor performance was found among children with a clinical diagnosis, in particular, in the tablet method. Discussion: These results suggest that hearing thresholds may be overestimated in children, especially those with clinical diagnosis such as attention or behavioral issues in the tablet method. Future work is needed to determine which clinical populations have potential benefit from a tablet method. Conclusions: Children's test preference is not a good index of hearing test accuracy.

Is there a clinical application for tablet-based automated audiometry in children?

INTRODUCTION: Recent research supports the clinical use of automated audiometry for pediatric hearing screenings. However, very few studies have tested whether tablet-based automated audiometry can offer a valid alternative to traditional manual audiometry for estimation of hearing thresholds in children. This study examined the validity and efficiency of automated audiometry in school-aged children. METHODS: Hearing thresholds for 0.5, 1, 2, 4, 6, and 8 kHz were collected in 32 children ages 6-12 years using standard audiometry and tablet-based automated audiometry in a soundproof booth. Test administration time, test preference, and medical history were also collected. RESULTS: Results exhibited that the majority (67%) of threshold differences between automated and standard were within the clinically acceptable range (10 dB). The threshold difference between the two tests showed that automated audiometry thresholds were higher by 12 dB in 6-year-olds, 7 dB in 7- to 9-year-olds, and 3 dB in 10- to 12-year-olds. In addition, test administration times were similar, such that standard audiometry took an average of 12.3 min and automated audiometry took 11.9 min. CONCLUSIONS: These results support the use of tablet-based automated audiometry in children from ages 7-12 years. However, the results suggest that the clinical use of at least some types of tablet-based automated audiometry may not be feasible in children 6 years of age.