Tasneem Dambha’s research while affiliated with University of Pretoria and other places

Purpose This study compared the test characteristics, test–retest reliability, and test efficiency of three novel digits-in-noise (DIN) test procedures to a conventional antiphasic 23-trial adaptive DIN (D23). Method One hundred twenty participants with an average age of 42 years (SD = 19) were included. Participants were tested and retested with four different DIN procedures. Three new DIN procedures were compared to the reference D23 version: (a) a self-selected DIN (DSS) to allow participants to indicate a subjective speech recognition threshold (SRT), (b) a combination of self-selected and adaptive eight-trial DIN (DC8) that utilized a self-selected signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) followed by an eight-trial adaptive DIN procedure, and (c) a fixed SNR DIN (DF) approach using a fixed SNR value for all presentations to produce a pass/fail test result. Results Test–retest reliability of the D23 procedure was better than that of the DSS and DC8 procedures. SRTs from DSS and DC8 were significantly higher than SRTs from D23. DSS was not accurate to discriminate between normal-hearing and hard of hearing listeners. The DF and DC8 procedures with an adapted cutoff showed good hearing screening test characteristics. All three novel DIN procedure durations were significantly shorter (< 70 s) than that of D23. DF showed a reduction of 46% in the number of presentations compared to D23 (from 23 presentations to an average of 12.5). Conclusions The DF and DC8 procedures had significantly lower test durations than the reference D23 and show potential to be more time-efficient screening tools to determine normal hearing or potential hearing loss. Further studies are needed to optimize the DC8 procedure. The reference D23 remains the most reliable and accurate DIN hearing screening test, but studies in which the potentially efficient new DIN procedures are compared to pure-tone thresholds are needed to validate these procedures.