ArticleThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America2022
Analytical methods for evaluating reliability and validity of mobile audiometry tools.
Article in The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Criterion validity of five open-source app-based cognitive and sensory tasks in an Australian adult life course sample aged 18 to 82: Labs without walls.Behavior research methods · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Statistical approaches that could be used as standardized methodology for evaluating reliability and validity of data obtained using remote audiometry are proposed. Using data from the Nurses' Health Study II (n = 31), the approaches to evaluate the reliability and validity of hearing threshold measurements obtained by a self-administered iPhone-based hearing assessment application (Decibel Therapeutics, Inc., Boston, MA) compared with measurements obtained by clinical (soundbooth) audiometry are described. These approaches use mixed-effects models to account for multilevel correlations, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) of single and averaged measurements, and regression techniques with the generalized estimating equations (GEEs) to account for between-ear correlations. Threshold measurements obtained using the iPhone application were moderately reliable. The reliability was improved substantially by averaging repeated measurements; good reliability was achieved by averaging three repeated measurements. In the linear regression analyses that assessed validity, the range of intercepts (2.3-8.4) and range of slopes (0.4-0.7) indicated that the measurements from the application were likely biased from those obtained by clinical audiometry. When evaluating alternative hearing assessment tools, it is recommended to assess reliability through mixed-effects models and use ICCs to determine the number of repeated assessments needed to achieve satisfactory reliability. When evaluating validity, GEE methods are recommended to estimate regression coefficients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.