ArticleAdvances in rehabilitation science and practice
A Comparative Analysis of a Perceptual Hearing Loss Assessment Dataset and the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health Core Sets for Hearing Loss.
Article in Advances in rehabilitation science and practice. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Common hearing assessments often overlook key aspects of hearing loss and its impact on daily-life. This study evaluates a broad dataset of audiological and functional measures by applying the World Health Organization's International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) Core Sets for Hearing Loss. The aim is to clarify which aspects of hearing loss-related functioning are represented in the dataset and which aspects are not addressed, thereby supporting appropriate interpretation and use of the data in clinical and research contexts. Design: The dataset includes results from otoscopy, pure-tone audiometry, a self-reported hearing and functioning questionnaire (HEAR-COMMAND Tool), speech intelligibility tests (Göttinger Sentence Test, GöSA and Oldenburger Sentence Test, OLSA), listening effort evaluation (Adaptive Categorical Listening Effort Scaling, ACALES), loudness perception assessments (Loudness Validation Method and Adaptive Categorical Loudness Scaling), a multi-talker conversation task (Concurrent Oldenburger Sentence Test, CCOLSA), coupler measurements, in-situ recordings, tone-in-noise perception, and the Dialogue Picture Task (DIAPIX). Using the ICF linking rules, all measures, performed on 76 participants, were systematically mapped to ICF categories. Results: For the brief CSHL, the dataset addressed 92.5% of the categories, missing only brain and inner ear structures. For the comprehensive CSHL, the dataset addressed 50.4% of the categories. This included 81.8% of Body Functions, 40% of Body Structures, 59.5% of Activities and Participation, and 29.1% of Environmental Factors. Conclusion: The results demonstrate that the dataset captures many key aspects of hearing loss and its consequences while also clarifying which areas of functioning are not addressed. By applying the ICF framework as a standardized reference, this study provides guidance for the transparent interpretation and appropriate use of the dataset in clinical and research settings, while enabling the creation of detailed profiles of an individual's hearing loss that are relevant for modeling speech intelligibility and listening effort.
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.