Subject: Re: [AUDITORY] National Hearing Test From: "Watson, Charles S." <watson@xxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 12:25:56 +0000 List-Archive:<http://lists.mcgill.ca/scripts/wa.exe?LIST=AUDITORY>Tom, Thanks for your interest in the telephone-administered National Hearing Tes= t. Your objection that the test is unlikely to work because of the variabi= lity in phone service is not without merit. It does, of course, assume tha= t US phone service must be much worse than that in the UK, Germany, France,= the Netherlands, Australia, and other countries where the same sorts of te= sts have been functioning quite successfully since 2004. A data-based coun= ter argument can be found in the validation study run by three hearing cent= ers operated by the US Veterans Administration. In that study one third of= the (over 600) participants took the test at home, using whatever telephon= e they happened to have (not cell phones). The correlation between pure-to= ne audiograms and the telephone test, for those who took the test at home w= as the same as for those of the same age who took the test with the phones = selected for use in the hearing clinics. This is reported in Watson, 2012 = (JAAA) and in more detail in a forthcoming report in JAAA by Williams-Sanch= ez et al. One aspect of your criticism is definitely accurate, however. L= ike any valid auditory test, there are many ways to perform badly but only = one to perform well. A bad phone connection, a noisy room, a distracted or= anxious client can all result in failing a screening test, and thus in a u= nnecessary recommendation for an evaluation by an audiologist. But the acc= uracy of this test, in terms of hit a false alarm rates suggests that if ca= llers fail this test they probably should make that appointment. =20 Thanks again for your interest in the NHT. We are sure the same concerns m= ust have occurred to many others and we are glad you raised them. Chuck Watson -----Original Message----- From: Tom Brennan [mailto:g_brennantg@xxxxxxxx=20 Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2013 6:49 AM To: Watson, Charles S. Cc: AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx Subject: Re: National Hearing Test While I see this test as a potentially good idea I am also aware of the ext= reme variability of telephone services in the U.S. depending upon whether o= ne is using a cell, treditional land line, broad band telephone, internet p= hone, etc. This alone would seem to invalidate the test results especially when teleph= ones with different receiver attributes are added to the mix. I would be interested in at least looking at this test but I believe that y= ou might get further with making people aware of it if those of us who are = professionals in audiology could actually take the test and perhaps use it = on selected clients to gain our own opinions of the test. Of course, this = would likely need to be for no charge but in a case like this we profession= als are probably going to want/need more than just journal references. I wish you the best of luck with this. It is potentially an excellent idea= but the U.S. telephone structure is going to make this pretty difficult. Tom Tom Brennan KD5VIJ, CCC-A/SLP web page http://titan.sfasu.edu/~g_brennantg/sonicpage.html