Test-Retest Reliability of Wideband Reflectance Measures in Infants under Screening and Diagnostic Test Conditions

OBJECTIVE:The main goal of this study was to examine the test-retest reliability of wideband reflectance (WBR) measures collected from infants in screening and diagnostic hearing test environments. In addition, the results of WBR testing for infants who passed and failed otoacoustic emission (OAE) s...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Ear and hearing 2007-09, Vol.28 (5), p.669-681
Hauptverfasser: Vander Werff, Kathy R, Prieve, Beth A, Georgantas, Lea M
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 681
container_issue 5
container_start_page 669
container_title Ear and hearing
container_volume 28
creator Vander Werff, Kathy R
Prieve, Beth A
Georgantas, Lea M
description OBJECTIVE:The main goal of this study was to examine the test-retest reliability of wideband reflectance (WBR) measures collected from infants in screening and diagnostic hearing test environments. In addition, the results of WBR testing for infants who passed and failed otoacoustic emission (OAE) screening were examined to determine whether these measures distinguished between the two groups. DESIGN:Repeated WBR measures were collected from two groups of infants, one group tested in an outpatient hearing screening setting and the other group in a diagnostic test setting. For a total of 127 infants and a control group of 10 adults, repeated WBR measurements were made with the probe left in place between the two tests (T1 and T2) and after reinsertion of the probe (T3) for a total of 3 measurements. Test-retest differences were calculated for each individual across one-third octave frequency bands, and the mean and 90th percentile were calculated by subject group and OAE results. WBR patterns were also compared between infants who passed versus failed OAE screening. RESULTS:Mean test-retest differences were smaller for the diagnostic group than for the screening group. Test-retest differences were largest for the reinsertion condition and for the frequencies below 500 Hz. While the low frequencies were variable, the test-retest differences were smallest in the mid-frequency range which is thought to be the frequency range most sensitive to middle ear dysfunction. Test-retest performance did not differ between infants who passed or failed OAE screening. However, infants who failed OAE screening had significantly higher WBR in the range from 630 to 2000 Hz than infants who passed OAE screening. CONCLUSIONS:Test-retest performance was poor for frequencies below 500 Hz, but in general test-retest differences were small across the important mid-frequency range. Reinsertion of the probe between repeated tests yielded larger and more variable test-retest differences. Careful monitoring of probe fit and testing while infants are in a quiet state appears to be critical for obtaining reliable WBR results. Analysis of WBR results indicated significantly higher reflected energy in the mid-frequency range for infants who failed OAE screening than for those who passed OAE screening. Although conclusions are limited by the fact that the true status of the middle ear and cochlea were not known for the infants in this study, this result may indicate that a number of these i
doi_str_mv 10.1097/AUD.0b013e31812f71b1
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_68244291</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>68244291</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3807-ead0c6ae55fd989a9fc8988ae5677092c570aafdaeb74aab0e56273bf1ab18493</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpdkEFP3DAQhS3UChbKP0CVL-0tdJw4sX1ECy1IVJUoqMdo4ozBrdehdiLEv69XrLRSfRn5-b2Z8cfYmYBzAUZ9uXi4PIcBREON0KJ2SgzigK1E2-hKdp16x1YgTFdBDfURO875N4CoTScP2ZFQGqTRYsXSPeW5uqO5FH5HwePgg59f-eT4Lz_SgHEsugtkZ4yW-HfCvCTK3Ed-Ex3GOfMljpT4T5uIoo-PfJu59PgYpzx7y7cj-HqKo5_9FPMH9t5hyHS6qyfs4evV_fq6uv3x7WZ9cVvZRoOqCEewHVLbutFog8ZZbbQuQqcUmNq2ChDdiDQoiThAeahVMziBg9DSNCfs81vf5zT9XcoO_cZnSyFgpGnJfadrKWsjilG-GW2ack7k-ufkN5heewH9lnVfWPf_sy6xj7v-y7ChcR_awS2GTzsDZovBpQLQ573PQNvqRu_nv0xhppT_hOWFUv9EGOanHspppOyqGqD8u9yqraSaf6F0mbs</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>68244291</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Test-Retest Reliability of Wideband Reflectance Measures in Infants under Screening and Diagnostic Test Conditions</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Journals@Ovid Complete</source><creator>Vander Werff, Kathy R ; Prieve, Beth A ; Georgantas, Lea M</creator><creatorcontrib>Vander Werff, Kathy R ; Prieve, Beth A ; Georgantas, Lea M</creatorcontrib><description>OBJECTIVE:The main goal of this study was to examine the test-retest reliability of wideband reflectance (WBR) measures collected from infants in screening and diagnostic hearing test environments. In addition, the results of WBR testing for infants who passed and failed otoacoustic emission (OAE) screening were examined to determine whether these measures distinguished between the two groups. DESIGN:Repeated WBR measures were collected from two groups of infants, one group tested in an outpatient hearing screening setting and the other group in a diagnostic test setting. For a total of 127 infants and a control group of 10 adults, repeated WBR measurements were made with the probe left in place between the two tests (T1 and T2) and after reinsertion of the probe (T3) for a total of 3 measurements. Test-retest differences were calculated for each individual across one-third octave frequency bands, and the mean and 90th percentile were calculated by subject group and OAE results. WBR patterns were also compared between infants who passed versus failed OAE screening. RESULTS:Mean test-retest differences were smaller for the diagnostic group than for the screening group. Test-retest differences were largest for the reinsertion condition and for the frequencies below 500 Hz. While the low frequencies were variable, the test-retest differences were smallest in the mid-frequency range which is thought to be the frequency range most sensitive to middle ear dysfunction. Test-retest performance did not differ between infants who passed or failed OAE screening. However, infants who failed OAE screening had significantly higher WBR in the range from 630 to 2000 Hz than infants who passed OAE screening. CONCLUSIONS:Test-retest performance was poor for frequencies below 500 Hz, but in general test-retest differences were small across the important mid-frequency range. Reinsertion of the probe between repeated tests yielded larger and more variable test-retest differences. Careful monitoring of probe fit and testing while infants are in a quiet state appears to be critical for obtaining reliable WBR results. Analysis of WBR results indicated significantly higher reflected energy in the mid-frequency range for infants who failed OAE screening than for those who passed OAE screening. Although conclusions are limited by the fact that the true status of the middle ear and cochlea were not known for the infants in this study, this result may indicate that a number of these infants failed OAE screening due to transient or permanent middle ear dysfunction which was detected by WBR.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0196-0202</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1538-4667</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e31812f71b1</identifier><identifier>PMID: 17804981</identifier><identifier>CODEN: EAHEDS</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Baltimore, MD: Lippincott Williams &amp; Wilkins, Inc</publisher><subject>Acoustic Stimulation - methods ; Adolescent ; Adult ; Biological and medical sciences ; Brain Stem - physiopathology ; Child, Preschool ; Cochlea - physiopathology ; Evoked Potentials, Auditory, Brain Stem - physiology ; Female ; Follow-Up Studies ; Hearing Loss, Conductive - diagnosis ; Hearing Loss, Conductive - physiopathology ; Hearing Tests - methods ; Humans ; Infant ; Infant, Newborn ; Male ; Mass Screening ; Medical sciences ; Neonatal Screening ; Otoacoustic Emissions, Spontaneous - physiology ; Otorhinolaryngology. Stomatology ; Reference Values ; Reproducibility of Results ; Sensitivity and Specificity</subject><ispartof>Ear and hearing, 2007-09, Vol.28 (5), p.669-681</ispartof><rights>2007 Lippincott Williams &amp; Wilkins, Inc.</rights><rights>2007 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3807-ead0c6ae55fd989a9fc8988ae5677092c570aafdaeb74aab0e56273bf1ab18493</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3807-ead0c6ae55fd989a9fc8988ae5677092c570aafdaeb74aab0e56273bf1ab18493</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27903,27904</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=19055838$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17804981$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Vander Werff, Kathy R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Prieve, Beth A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Georgantas, Lea M</creatorcontrib><title>Test-Retest Reliability of Wideband Reflectance Measures in Infants under Screening and Diagnostic Test Conditions</title><title>Ear and hearing</title><addtitle>Ear Hear</addtitle><description>OBJECTIVE:The main goal of this study was to examine the test-retest reliability of wideband reflectance (WBR) measures collected from infants in screening and diagnostic hearing test environments. In addition, the results of WBR testing for infants who passed and failed otoacoustic emission (OAE) screening were examined to determine whether these measures distinguished between the two groups. DESIGN:Repeated WBR measures were collected from two groups of infants, one group tested in an outpatient hearing screening setting and the other group in a diagnostic test setting. For a total of 127 infants and a control group of 10 adults, repeated WBR measurements were made with the probe left in place between the two tests (T1 and T2) and after reinsertion of the probe (T3) for a total of 3 measurements. Test-retest differences were calculated for each individual across one-third octave frequency bands, and the mean and 90th percentile were calculated by subject group and OAE results. WBR patterns were also compared between infants who passed versus failed OAE screening. RESULTS:Mean test-retest differences were smaller for the diagnostic group than for the screening group. Test-retest differences were largest for the reinsertion condition and for the frequencies below 500 Hz. While the low frequencies were variable, the test-retest differences were smallest in the mid-frequency range which is thought to be the frequency range most sensitive to middle ear dysfunction. Test-retest performance did not differ between infants who passed or failed OAE screening. However, infants who failed OAE screening had significantly higher WBR in the range from 630 to 2000 Hz than infants who passed OAE screening. CONCLUSIONS:Test-retest performance was poor for frequencies below 500 Hz, but in general test-retest differences were small across the important mid-frequency range. Reinsertion of the probe between repeated tests yielded larger and more variable test-retest differences. Careful monitoring of probe fit and testing while infants are in a quiet state appears to be critical for obtaining reliable WBR results. Analysis of WBR results indicated significantly higher reflected energy in the mid-frequency range for infants who failed OAE screening than for those who passed OAE screening. Although conclusions are limited by the fact that the true status of the middle ear and cochlea were not known for the infants in this study, this result may indicate that a number of these infants failed OAE screening due to transient or permanent middle ear dysfunction which was detected by WBR.</description><subject>Acoustic Stimulation - methods</subject><subject>Adolescent</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Brain Stem - physiopathology</subject><subject>Child, Preschool</subject><subject>Cochlea - physiopathology</subject><subject>Evoked Potentials, Auditory, Brain Stem - physiology</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Follow-Up Studies</subject><subject>Hearing Loss, Conductive - diagnosis</subject><subject>Hearing Loss, Conductive - physiopathology</subject><subject>Hearing Tests - methods</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Infant</subject><subject>Infant, Newborn</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Mass Screening</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Neonatal Screening</subject><subject>Otoacoustic Emissions, Spontaneous - physiology</subject><subject>Otorhinolaryngology. Stomatology</subject><subject>Reference Values</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>Sensitivity and Specificity</subject><issn>0196-0202</issn><issn>1538-4667</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2007</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNpdkEFP3DAQhS3UChbKP0CVL-0tdJw4sX1ECy1IVJUoqMdo4ozBrdehdiLEv69XrLRSfRn5-b2Z8cfYmYBzAUZ9uXi4PIcBREON0KJ2SgzigK1E2-hKdp16x1YgTFdBDfURO875N4CoTScP2ZFQGqTRYsXSPeW5uqO5FH5HwePgg59f-eT4Lz_SgHEsugtkZ4yW-HfCvCTK3Ed-Ex3GOfMljpT4T5uIoo-PfJu59PgYpzx7y7cj-HqKo5_9FPMH9t5hyHS6qyfs4evV_fq6uv3x7WZ9cVvZRoOqCEewHVLbutFog8ZZbbQuQqcUmNq2ChDdiDQoiThAeahVMziBg9DSNCfs81vf5zT9XcoO_cZnSyFgpGnJfadrKWsjilG-GW2ack7k-ufkN5heewH9lnVfWPf_sy6xj7v-y7ChcR_awS2GTzsDZovBpQLQ573PQNvqRu_nv0xhppT_hOWFUv9EGOanHspppOyqGqD8u9yqraSaf6F0mbs</recordid><startdate>200709</startdate><enddate>200709</enddate><creator>Vander Werff, Kathy R</creator><creator>Prieve, Beth A</creator><creator>Georgantas, Lea M</creator><general>Lippincott Williams &amp; Wilkins, Inc</general><general>Lippincott Williams &amp; Wilkins</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>8BM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200709</creationdate><title>Test-Retest Reliability of Wideband Reflectance Measures in Infants under Screening and Diagnostic Test Conditions</title><author>Vander Werff, Kathy R ; Prieve, Beth A ; Georgantas, Lea M</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3807-ead0c6ae55fd989a9fc8988ae5677092c570aafdaeb74aab0e56273bf1ab18493</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2007</creationdate><topic>Acoustic Stimulation - methods</topic><topic>Adolescent</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Brain Stem - physiopathology</topic><topic>Child, Preschool</topic><topic>Cochlea - physiopathology</topic><topic>Evoked Potentials, Auditory, Brain Stem - physiology</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Follow-Up Studies</topic><topic>Hearing Loss, Conductive - diagnosis</topic><topic>Hearing Loss, Conductive - physiopathology</topic><topic>Hearing Tests - methods</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Infant</topic><topic>Infant, Newborn</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Mass Screening</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Neonatal Screening</topic><topic>Otoacoustic Emissions, Spontaneous - physiology</topic><topic>Otorhinolaryngology. Stomatology</topic><topic>Reference Values</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>Sensitivity and Specificity</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Vander Werff, Kathy R</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Prieve, Beth A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Georgantas, Lea M</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>ComDisDome</collection><jtitle>Ear and hearing</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Vander Werff, Kathy R</au><au>Prieve, Beth A</au><au>Georgantas, Lea M</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Test-Retest Reliability of Wideband Reflectance Measures in Infants under Screening and Diagnostic Test Conditions</atitle><jtitle>Ear and hearing</jtitle><addtitle>Ear Hear</addtitle><date>2007-09</date><risdate>2007</risdate><volume>28</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>669</spage><epage>681</epage><pages>669-681</pages><issn>0196-0202</issn><eissn>1538-4667</eissn><coden>EAHEDS</coden><abstract>OBJECTIVE:The main goal of this study was to examine the test-retest reliability of wideband reflectance (WBR) measures collected from infants in screening and diagnostic hearing test environments. In addition, the results of WBR testing for infants who passed and failed otoacoustic emission (OAE) screening were examined to determine whether these measures distinguished between the two groups. DESIGN:Repeated WBR measures were collected from two groups of infants, one group tested in an outpatient hearing screening setting and the other group in a diagnostic test setting. For a total of 127 infants and a control group of 10 adults, repeated WBR measurements were made with the probe left in place between the two tests (T1 and T2) and after reinsertion of the probe (T3) for a total of 3 measurements. Test-retest differences were calculated for each individual across one-third octave frequency bands, and the mean and 90th percentile were calculated by subject group and OAE results. WBR patterns were also compared between infants who passed versus failed OAE screening. RESULTS:Mean test-retest differences were smaller for the diagnostic group than for the screening group. Test-retest differences were largest for the reinsertion condition and for the frequencies below 500 Hz. While the low frequencies were variable, the test-retest differences were smallest in the mid-frequency range which is thought to be the frequency range most sensitive to middle ear dysfunction. Test-retest performance did not differ between infants who passed or failed OAE screening. However, infants who failed OAE screening had significantly higher WBR in the range from 630 to 2000 Hz than infants who passed OAE screening. CONCLUSIONS:Test-retest performance was poor for frequencies below 500 Hz, but in general test-retest differences were small across the important mid-frequency range. Reinsertion of the probe between repeated tests yielded larger and more variable test-retest differences. Careful monitoring of probe fit and testing while infants are in a quiet state appears to be critical for obtaining reliable WBR results. Analysis of WBR results indicated significantly higher reflected energy in the mid-frequency range for infants who failed OAE screening than for those who passed OAE screening. Although conclusions are limited by the fact that the true status of the middle ear and cochlea were not known for the infants in this study, this result may indicate that a number of these infants failed OAE screening due to transient or permanent middle ear dysfunction which was detected by WBR.</abstract><cop>Baltimore, MD</cop><pub>Lippincott Williams &amp; Wilkins, Inc</pub><pmid>17804981</pmid><doi>10.1097/AUD.0b013e31812f71b1</doi><tpages>13</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0196-0202
ispartof Ear and hearing, 2007-09, Vol.28 (5), p.669-681
issn 0196-0202
1538-4667
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_68244291
source MEDLINE; Journals@Ovid Complete
subjects Acoustic Stimulation - methods
Adolescent
Adult
Biological and medical sciences
Brain Stem - physiopathology
Child, Preschool
Cochlea - physiopathology
Evoked Potentials, Auditory, Brain Stem - physiology
Female
Follow-Up Studies
Hearing Loss, Conductive - diagnosis
Hearing Loss, Conductive - physiopathology
Hearing Tests - methods
Humans
Infant
Infant, Newborn
Male
Mass Screening
Medical sciences
Neonatal Screening
Otoacoustic Emissions, Spontaneous - physiology
Otorhinolaryngology. Stomatology
Reference Values
Reproducibility of Results
Sensitivity and Specificity
title Test-Retest Reliability of Wideband Reflectance Measures in Infants under Screening and Diagnostic Test Conditions
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-24T21%3A35%3A14IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Test-Retest%20Reliability%20of%20Wideband%20Reflectance%20Measures%20in%20Infants%20under%20Screening%20and%20Diagnostic%20Test%20Conditions&rft.jtitle=Ear%20and%20hearing&rft.au=Vander%20Werff,%20Kathy%20R&rft.date=2007-09&rft.volume=28&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=669&rft.epage=681&rft.pages=669-681&rft.issn=0196-0202&rft.eissn=1538-4667&rft.coden=EAHEDS&rft_id=info:doi/10.1097/AUD.0b013e31812f71b1&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E68244291%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=68244291&rft_id=info:pmid/17804981&rfr_iscdi=true