Presenter Information

Kailey Symes

Department

Speech-Language and Hearing Sciences

First Advisor

Mary Jo Cooley Hidecker

Second Advisor

Nancy Pajak

Description

The purpose of this research was to compare the outcomes of two hearing screening protocols for preschoolers, toddlers, and infants: (1) Using only transient evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAEs); and (2) Using TEOAEs, immittance, otoscopy, and pure-tone screening. This research consisted of a secondary data analysis of hearing screening results from 709 preschoolers, toddlers, and infants screened in Albany County, Wyoming. Data was collected by the Wyoming Early Hearing Detection and Intervention program and analyzed using the statistical software program SPSS 22. The results of a McNemar Chi-square test showed no significant difference in the identification rates of hearing loss in the two hearing screening protocols. Four participant ears that were classified as passing TEOAE failed the overall screening, while no participant ears were classified as failing the TEOAE screening and passed the overall screening. There was no significant difference in sensitivity and specificity of the two hearing screening protocols. Using TEOAEs only is an efficient, low-cost hearing screening protocol that could maximize the early identification of infants, toddlers, and preschoolers with hearing loss and allow them the opportunity to benefit from early intervention.

Included in

Education Commons

Share

COinS
 

Comparison of Hearing Screening Protocols for Preschoolers, Infants, and Toddlers

The purpose of this research was to compare the outcomes of two hearing screening protocols for preschoolers, toddlers, and infants: (1) Using only transient evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAEs); and (2) Using TEOAEs, immittance, otoscopy, and pure-tone screening. This research consisted of a secondary data analysis of hearing screening results from 709 preschoolers, toddlers, and infants screened in Albany County, Wyoming. Data was collected by the Wyoming Early Hearing Detection and Intervention program and analyzed using the statistical software program SPSS 22. The results of a McNemar Chi-square test showed no significant difference in the identification rates of hearing loss in the two hearing screening protocols. Four participant ears that were classified as passing TEOAE failed the overall screening, while no participant ears were classified as failing the TEOAE screening and passed the overall screening. There was no significant difference in sensitivity and specificity of the two hearing screening protocols. Using TEOAEs only is an efficient, low-cost hearing screening protocol that could maximize the early identification of infants, toddlers, and preschoolers with hearing loss and allow them the opportunity to benefit from early intervention.