RESUMO
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to critically evaluate lifetime noise exposure history (LNEH) reporting. First, two different approaches to evaluate the cumulative LNEH were compared. Second, individual LNEH was associated with the subjects' hearing status. Third, loudness estimates of exposure activities, by means of Jokitulppo- and Ferguson-based exposure levels, were compared with dosimeter sound-level measurements. METHOD: One hundred one young adults completed the questionnaires, and a subgroup of 30 subjects underwent audiological assessment. Pure-tone audiometry, speech-in-noise intelligibility, distortion product otoacoustic emissions, auditory brainstem responses, and envelope following responses were included. Fifteen out of the 30 subjects took part in a noisy activity while wearing a dosimeter. RESULTS: First, results demonstrate that the structured questionnaire yielded a greater amount of information pertaining to the diverse activities, surpassing the insights obtained from an open-ended questionnaire. Second, no significant correlations between audiological assessment and LNEH were found. Lastly, the results indicate that Ferguson-based exposure levels offer a more precise estimation of the actual exposure levels, in contrast to Jokitulppo-based estimates. CONCLUSIONS: We propose several recommendations for determining the LNEH. First, it is vital to define accurate loudness categories and corresponding allocated levels, with a preference for the loudness levels proposed by Ferguson et al. (2019), as identified in this study. Second, a structured questionnaire regarding LNEH is recommended, discouraging open-ended questioning. Third, it is essential to include a separate category exclusively addressing work-related activities, encompassing various activities for more accurate surveying.