Search

In 1996, ASHA addressed the need for appropriate tools to screen for (C)APD; yet, no universally accepted screening tool has been identified. The purpose of the current study was to determine if Fisher's Auditory Problems Checklist (Fisher, 1976) is a useful screening tool. A Chi Square goodness-of-fit found that children who scored at or below cutoff on Fisher's Checklist were significantly more likely to receive a diagnosis of (C)APD (X21 = 22.5, p < 0.05) based on the Buffalo Model Diagnostic Test Battery. The current study offers preliminary support for the clinical usefulness of Fisher's Auditory Problems Checklist (Fisher, 1976) as a screening tool. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

High frequency hearing loss (HFHL), often related to hazardous noise, affects one in six U.S. adolescents. Yet, only 20 states include school-based hearing screens for adolescents. Only six states test multiple high frequencies. Study objectives were to (1) compare the sensitivity of state school-based hearing screens for adolescents to gold standard sound-treated booth testing and (2) consider the effect of adding multiple high frequencies and two-step screening on sensitivity/specificity. Of 134 eleventh-grade participants (2013-2014), 43 of the 134 (32%) did not pass sound-treated booth testing, and 27 of the 43 (63%) had HFHL. Sensitivity/specificity of the most common protocol (1,000, 2,000, 4,000 Hz at 20 dB HL) for these hearing losses was 25.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] = [13.5, 41.2]) and 85.7% (95% CI [76.8, 92.2]), respectively. A protocol including 500, 1,000, 2,000, 4,000, 6,000 Hz at 20 dB HL significantly improved sensitivity to 76.7% (95% CI [61.4, 88.2]), p < .001. Two-step screening maintained specificity (84.6%, 95% CI [75.5, 91.3]). Adolescent school-based hearing screen sensitivity improves with high frequencies., (© The Author(s) 2016.)

Purpose: One in 6 US adolescents has high-frequency hearing loss, often related to hazardous noise. Yet, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) hearing screen (500, 1,000, 2,000, 4,000 Hertz) primarily includes low frequencies (<3,000 Hertz). Study objectives were to determine (1) sensitivity and specificity of the AAP hearing screen for adolescent hearing loss and (2) if adding high frequencies increases sensitivity, while repeat screening of initial referrals reduces false positive results (maintaining acceptable specificity)., Methods: Eleventh graders (n = 134) participated in hearing screening (2013-2014) including "gold-standard" sound-treated booth testing to calculate sensitivity and specificity., Results: Of the 43 referrals, 27 (63%) had high-frequency hearing loss. AAP screen sensitivity and specificity were 58.1% (95% confidence interval 42.1%-73.0%) and 91.2% (95% confidence interval 83.4-96.1), respectively. Adding high frequencies (6,000, 8,000 Hertz) significantly increased sensitivity to 79.1% (64.0%-90.0%; p = .003). Specificity with repeat screening was 81.3% (71.8%-88.7%; p = .003)., Conclusions: Adolescent hearing screen sensitivity improves with high frequencies. Repeat testing maintains acceptable specificity., (Copyright © 2016 Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Approximately 15% of children in the United States 6-19 years of age have hearing loss. Even mild, unilateral hearing loss may adversely affect educational success. In 2014, the Pennsylvania Department of Health (PA DOH) began updating the 2001 regulations on state-mandated school hearing screens. To inform the updates, a needs assessment was conducted with PA-certified school nurses (CSNs) regarding current screening practice and potential barriers to making changes., Methods: A 42-item electronic survey of CSNs developed with pediatricians, audiologists, nurses, and the PA DOH was administered in October 2014., Results: There were 536 completed surveys. Most CSNs (50.8%) screened 251-500 students annually. Only 35.8% strictly followed PA DOH protocol, while 51.6% followed protocol and added nonguideline frequencies. Over half of screens (60.2%) were conducted in places where other people were present. Most CSNs (82.5%) reported annual audiometer calibration, but 92.4% were unsure whether the calibration was exhaustive or limited. Reported barriers to change included time, cost, and staffing., Conclusions: As most CSNs added frequencies to the PA DOH hearing screen, an update with added frequencies should be well accepted. Clarification regarding test environment and exhaustive audiometer calibration is needed. Adherence to best practice may be optimized by addressing CSN reported barriers to change., (© 2016, American School Health Association.)

Objective: There is a rising prevalence of hearing loss among adolescents in the United States. Current paediatric preventive care recommendations by the Bright Futures guidelines and the American Academy of Pediatrics suggest that clinicians should ask adolescents ten hearing screening questions to identify those who are at high risk of hearing loss for further objective hearing testing. We assessed the utility of these subjective risk assessment questions to distinguish those adolescents with objectively documented hearing loss., Setting: A single public high school in Pennsylvania., Methods: We compared results from a prospective study evaluating objective hearing assessments with the use of the ten Bright Futures hearing screening questions plus additional adolescent-specific questions to predict adolescent hearing loss., Results: In relation to the questions used in this study, adolescents who were referred following objective hearing screens were more likely to report "trouble following the conversation when two or more people are talking at the same time" and a "past experience of slight hearing loss". Referrals from sound treated booth testing were more likely to report "trouble hearing over the phone" and have a diagnosis or history of hearing loss., Conclusions: Most Bright Futures questions were not associated with adolescent hearing loss. An objective adolescent hearing screen should be considered in the recommended schedule of preventive care, instead of the current risk-based subjective assessment., (© The Author(s) 2014 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav.)

Objective: Like most of the United States, school-based hearing screening in Pennsylvania focuses on low-frequency, conductive hearing losses typical for young children, rather than the high-frequency, noise-induced hearing loss more prevalent among adolescents. The objective of this study was to compare the sensitivity and specificity of current school hearing screening in Pennsylvania with hearing screening including high frequencies, designed to detect adolescent hearing loss., Setting: A single public high school., Methods: In the Autumn of 2011 the high-frequency screen was delivered alongside the Pennsylvania school screen for students in the 11(th) grade. Screening referrals and a subset of passes returned for "gold standard" testing with audiology in a sound treated booth, in order to determine the sensitivity and specificity of the screening tests., Results: Of 282 participants, five (2%) were referred on the Pennsylvania school screen, and 85 (30%) were referred on the high-frequency screen. Of the 48 who returned for gold standard testing with audiology, hearing loss was diagnosed in 9/48 (19%). Sensitivity of the Pennsylvania and high-frequency screens were 13% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0-53%) and 100% (95% CI 66-100%) respectively. Specificity of the Pennsylvania and high-frequency screens were 97% (95% CI 87-100%) and 49% (95% CI 32-65%) respectively., Conclusions: Current school hearing screens have low sensitivity for detection of adolescent hearing loss. Modifying school-based protocols may be warranted to best screen adolescents, and make optimal use of school nurse time and effort.

The prevalence of hearing loss has increased among United States children. As schools commonly perform hearing screens, we sought to contrast current United States school-based hearing screening protocols. State department of health and education websites were reviewed to assess school hearing screening protocols for the fifty states and the District of Columbia. Individuals listed on these websites were contacted as necessary to confirm and/or acquire relevant data. School-based hearing screening is currently required in 34/51 (67 %) states. Of these 34 states, 28 (82 %) mandate grades for screening, but only 20 (59 %) require screening beyond 6th grade. Pure tone audiometry is the most common screening method (33/34 [97 %]). A majority of states screen at 1, 2 and 4 kHz usually at 20 or 25 dB hearing level. Six states recommend or require testing at 6 or 8 kHz, which is necessary to detect high-frequency hearing loss. The results indicate that United States school-based hearing screens vary significantly. They focus on low frequencies with few testing adolescents for whom high-frequency hearing loss has increased. Disparities in hearing loss detection are likely, particularly considering the evolution of hazardous noise exposures and rising prevalence of hearing loss.