HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal My Folders Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Stuart, A. Articles by Jones, S. M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Stuart, A. Articles by Jones, S. M. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Test–Retest Reliability of Low-Level Evoked Distortion Product Otoacoustic Emissions

Contact author: Andrew Stuart, Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, College of Allied Health Sciences, Health Sciences Building, East Carolina University, Greenville, NC 27858-4353. E-mail: stuarta{at}ecu.edu.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to examine test–retest reliability of low-level evoked distortion product otoacoustic emissions (DPOAEs) as a function of L₁, L₂ level; f₂ frequency; and test condition. A predictive relationship between these variables and the presence/absence of DPOAE responses was also examined.

Method: Sixteen normal-hearing young adults participated. DPOAEs were evoked to 12 tones with f₂ frequencies ranging from 1500 Hz to 7546 Hz at 4 L₂ levels between 45 dB SPL and 30 dB SPL. Four test conditions were employed: (a) initial test, (b) retest without probe removal, (c) retest with probe reinsertion, and (d) retest with probe reinsertion by a second tester.

Results: L₁, L₂ level and f₂ frequency were statistically significant (p < .0001) predictors of a DPOAE response (i.e., the presence of a DPOAE response was more likely to be observed at higher L₁, L₂ levels and lower f₂ frequencies regardless of test condition). DPOAE levels were significantly affected by L₁, L₂ level and f₂ frequency (p < .0001) but not by test condition. Intra- and intertester test–retest differences were not significantly different.

Conclusions: The prevalence of missing responses coupled with large intersubject variability and intrasubject test–retest variability are a detriment to the clinical utility of DPOAEs evoked with low-level stimuli.

KEY WORDS: distortion product otoacoustic emissions, reliability, test–retest differences

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Facebook    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?