On the Accuracy and Repeatability of Occupational Audiograms Obtained by Non-Audiologists.

OBJECTIVE: Occupational audiograms are obtained during military service to check for possible hearing damage and to assess fitness for duty. This paper compares the accuracy and repeatability of audiograms obtained by non-audiologists and by trained audiologists. METHODS: Data from published papers on the accuracy and repeatability of audiograms obtained by audiologists and non-audiologists were assessed. RESULTS: Audiograms obtained by non-audiologists showed systematic deviations from those obtained by audiologists and showed far poorer repeatability (by a factor of about 1.8). CONCLUSIONS: It is recommended that: (1) occupational audiograms obtained by non-audiologists should not be used for the diagnosis or quantification of noise-induced hearing loss; (2) occupational audiograms should be obtained by independent and fully trained audiologists or should be obtained using an automated system that includes methods for the detection of false positives and inconsistent responses.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
Apollo (University of Cambridge)
Published
2025-11-03
DOI
https://doi.org/10.17863/cam.125379
Primary Topic
Hearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, Genetics
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

On the Accuracy and Repeatability of Occupational Audiograms Obtained by Non-Audiologists.

Hedwig E. Gockel, Graham Cox, David Lowe, Brian CJ Moore
Apollo (University of Cambridge)
Hearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, Genetics
article

On the Accuracy and Repeatability of Occupational Audiograms Obtained by Non-Audiologists.

Hedwig E. Gockel, Graham Cox, David Lowe, Brian CJ Moore
article en

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Occupational audiograms are obtained during military service to check for possible hearing damage and to assess fitness for duty. This paper compares the accuracy and repeatability of audiograms obtained by non-audiologists and by trained audiologists. METHODS: Data from published papers on the accuracy and repeatability of audiograms obtained by audiologists and non-audiologists were assessed. RESULTS: Audiograms obtained by non-audiologists showed systematic deviations from those obtained by audiologists and showed far poorer repeatability (by a factor of about 1.8). CONCLUSIONS: It is recommended that: (1) occupational audiograms obtained by non-audiologists should not be used for the diagnosis or quantification of noise-induced hearing loss; (2) occupational audiograms should be obtained by independent and fully trained audiologists or should be obtained using an automated system that includes methods for the detection of false positives and inconsistent responses.

Apollo (University of Cambridge)
No poverty
Openalex Percentile: Top 29%
Hearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, Genetics
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

On the Accuracy and Repeatability of Occupational Audiograms Obtained by Non-Audiologists. — Hedwig E. Gockel, Graham Cox, et al. · Apollo (University of Cambridge) (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS