ArticleAudiology research2025
A Critique of the Stenger Test.
Article in Audiology research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionMost audiometers have an in-built "Stenger test" setting. The test is sometimes applied in cases of single-sided deafness as an indicator of malingering. Although textbooks have been written about it, the underlying conditions remain enigmatic. The literature usually points to psychological problems, pointing to the patient as having "nonorganic hearing loss", "malingering", "false and exaggerated hearing loss", "hysterical hearing loss", or "pseudohypoacusis". These are all non-objective features without a sound scientific base, and the test tends to blame the patient for providing non-repeatable hearing thresholds.
methodsThis opinion piece looks at the literature surrounding the Stenger test and the factors that might cause hearing threshold variability and concludes that the test has a subjective basis that makes it unscientific. In our opinion, we also think it is ethically questionable to blame the patient for malingering when there are non-repeatable findings. In order to make the test scientifically valid, we frame a testable hypothesis: that the Stenger effect could be due to unrecognised contraction of the middle ear muscles in response to stimulation of the contralateral (worse-hearing) ear. That is, we suppose that bilateral contraction impairs thresholds in both the good and poor ear, so the subject can no longer hear a tone in their good ear which they previously could when their audiogram was established monaurally. Thus, we make the case that the subject is not malingering-they genuinely cannot hear the test tones in either ear. DISCUSSION AND
conclusionsWe believe it is incorrect to blame the patient when the problem may lie with incomplete understanding of how the auditory system functions bilaterally. The test needs to be objectively investigated and perhaps reinterpreted in terms of hearing sensitivity in one ear being reduced by sound levels in the contralateral ear. If this is not possible, we suggest it would be better if the Stenger test were abolished.
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.