Intertester Reliability of the Acceptable Noise Level

2012 ◽  
Vol 23 (07) ◽  
pp. 534-541 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan Gordon-Hickey ◽  
Elizabeth Adams ◽  
Robert Moore ◽  
Ashley Gaal ◽  
Katie Berry ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Noise Level ◽  
Background Noise ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Intraclass Correlation ◽  
Correlation Coefficients ◽  
Random Order ◽  
Instruction Set ◽  
Intraclass Correlation Coefficients ◽  
Acceptable Noise Level ◽  
Quasi Experimental

Background: The acceptable noise level (ANL) serves to accurately predict the listener's likelihood of success with amplification. It has been proposed as a pre–hearing aid fitting protocol for hearing aid selection and counseling purposes. The ANL is a subjective measure of the listener's ability to accept background noise. Measurement of ANL relies on the tester and listener to follow the instructions set forth. To date, no research has explored the reliability of ANL as measured across clinicians or testers. Purpose: To examine the intertester reliability of ANL. Research Design: A descriptive quasi-experimental reliability study was completed. ANL was measured for one group of listeners by three testers. Study Sample: Three participants served as testers. Each tester was familiar with basic audiometry. Twenty-five young adults with normal hearing served as listeners. Data Collection/Analysis: Each tester was stationed in a laboratory with the needed equipment. Listeners were instructed to report to these laboratories in a random order provided by the experimenters. The testers assessed most comfortable listening level (MCL) and background noise level (BNL) for all 25 listeners. Results: Intraclass correlation coefficients were significant and revealed that MCL, BNL, and ANLs are reliable across testers. Additionally, one-way ANOVAs for MCL, BNL, and ANL were not significant. These findings indicate that MCL, BNL, and ANL do not differ significantly when measured by different testers. Conclusions: If the ANL instruction set is accurately followed, ANL can be reliably measured across testers, laboratories, and clinics. Intertester reliability of ANL allows for comparison across ANLs measured by different individuals. Findings of the present study indicate that tester reliability can be ruled out as a factor contributing to the disparity of mean ANLs reported in the literature.

scholarly journals How Important Is Randomization of Swallows During Kinematic Analyses of Swallow Function?

2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (3) ◽  
pp. 1650-1654
Author(s):  
Cara Donohue ◽  
James L. Coyle
Keyword(s):  
Intraclass Correlation ◽  
Correlation Coefficients ◽  
Random Order ◽  
Preliminary Evidence ◽  
Intrarater Reliability ◽  
Kinematic Data ◽  
Intraclass Correlation Coefficients ◽  
Exact Agreement ◽  
Kinematic Analyses ◽  
Swallow Function

Purpose In dysphagia research involving kinematic analyses on individual swallow parameters, randomization is used to ensure judges are not influenced by judgments made for other parameters within the same swallow or by judgments made for other swallows from the same participant. Yet, the necessity of randomizing swallows to avoid bias during kinematic analyses is largely assumed and untested. This study investigated whether randomization of the order of swallows presented to judges impacts analyses of temporal kinematic events from videofluoroscopic swallow studies. Method One hundred twenty-seven swallows were analyzed from 18 healthy adults who underwent standardized videofluoroscopic swallow studies. Swallows were first analyzed by two trained raters sequentially, analyzing all kinematic events within each swallow, and then a second time in random order, measuring one kinematic event at a time. Intrarater reliability measurements were calculated between random and sequential swallow judgments for all kinematic events using intraclass correlation coefficient and percent exact agreement within a three-frame tolerance. Results Intraclass correlation coefficients (1.00) and percent exact agreement (89%) were excellent for all kinematic events between analyses methods, indicating there were no significant differences in measurements performed in random or sequential order. Conclusions This study provides preliminary evidence that randomization may be unnecessary during temporal swallow kinematic data analyses for research, which may lead to more efficient analyses and dissemination of findings, and alignment of findings with clinical interpretations. Replication of this design with swallows from people with dysphagia would strengthen the generalizability of the results.

Loudness as a Cue for Acceptable Noise Levels

2014 ◽  
Vol 25 (06) ◽  
pp. 605-623 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karrie L. Recker ◽  
Martin F. McKinney ◽  
Brent W. Edwards
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Noise Level ◽  
Background Noise ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Matching Task ◽  
Small Subset ◽  
Acceptable Noise Level ◽  
Matched Data ◽  
High Degree ◽  
Different Levels

Background/Purpose: The acceptable noise level (ANL) test is the only test that is known to predict success with hearing aids with a high degree of accuracy. A person’s ANL is the maximal amount of background noise that he or she is “willing to put up with” while listening to running speech. It is defined as the speech level minus the noise level, in decibels (dB). People who are willing to put up with high levels of background noise are generally successful hearing-aid wearers, whereas people who are not willing to put up with high levels of background noise are generally unsuccessful hearing-aid wearers. If it were known what cues that listeners are using to decide how much background noise they are willing to tolerate, then it might be possible to create technology that reduces these cues and improves listeners’ chances of success with hearing aids. As a first step toward this goal, this study investigated whether listeners are using loudness as a cue to determine their ANLs. Research Design and Study Sample: Twenty-one individuals with normal hearing and 21 individuals with sensorineural hearing loss participated in this study. In each group of 21 participants, 7 had a low ANL (<7 dB), 7 had a mid ANL (7–13 dB), and 7 had a high ANL (>13 dB). Data Collection/Analysis: Participants performed a modified version of the ANL in which the speech was fixed at four different levels (50, 63, 75 and 88 dBA), and participants adjusted the background noise (multitalker babble) to the maximal level at which they were willing to listen while following the speech. These results were compared with participants’ equal-loudness contours for the multitalker babble in the presence of speech. Equal-loudness contours were measured by having the participants perform a loudness-matching task in which they matched the level of the background noise (multitalker babble), played concurrently with speech, to a reference condition (also multitalker babble). During the test condition, the speech played at 50, 63, 75, or 88 dBA. All testing was performed in a sound booth with the speech and the noise presented from a loudspeaker at a 0° azimuth, 3 feet in front of the participant. Each condition was presented multiple times, and the results were averaged. Presentation order was randomized. Participants were tested unaided. Results: Participants' ANLs were compared with their equal-loudness contours for the background noise. ANLs that ran parallel to the equal-loudness contours were considered consistent with a loudness-based listening strategy. This pattern was observed for only two participants – both hearing-impaired. Conclusions: The majority of listeners showed no consistent trend between their ANLs and their loudness-matched data, suggesting that they are using cues other than loudness to determine their ANLs. ANLs were consistent with loudness-matched data for a small subset of listeners, suggesting that they may be using loudness as a cue for determining their ANLs.

scholarly journals Validation of online Asthma Control Questionnaire and Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 00289-2019
Author(s):  
Rishi J. Khusial ◽  
Persijn J. Honkoop ◽  
Victor van der Meer ◽  
Jiska B. Snoeck-Stroband ◽  
Jacob K. Sont
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Asthma Control ◽  
Intraclass Correlation ◽  
Correlation Coefficients ◽  
Random Order ◽  
Life Questionnaire ◽  
Asthma Control Questionnaire ◽  
Quality Of Life Questionnaire ◽  
Intraclass Correlation Coefficients

ObjectiveSeveral newly developed eHealth applications use online questionnaires to monitor asthma control. The Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) and Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ) are two such commonly used questionnaires. These questionnaires are validated for use on paper. This study aims to validate them by assessing the agreement between online and paper versions of the ACQ and AQLQ.MethodsPatients (aged 18 years and older) from the Self-Management in Asthma Supported by Hospitals, ICT, Nurses and General Practitioners (SMASHING)-trial and Davos@home study were included in this study. Patients completed both the paper and online Dutch versions of the ACQ and AQLQ in a random order within a 2-week interval. Agreement between the different versions was assessed with paired t-tests, intraclass correlation coefficients and Bland–Altman plots.ResultsIn total 44 patients were eligible for analysis. The mean difference between the paper and online versions of the ACQ was 0.04 (p=0.40) and for the AQLQ it was 0.08 (p=0.06). The intraclass correlation coefficient scores were 0.94 for the ACQ and 0.95 for the AQLQ.ConclusionThe online versions of the ACQ and AQLQ show high levels of agreement with the paper versions and can therefore be safely used in eHealth applications to respectively monitor asthma control and quality of life.

Comparison of Speech Perception in Background Noise With Acceptance of Background Noise in Aided and Unaided Conditions

2004 ◽  
Vol 47 (5) ◽  
pp. 1001-1011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna K. Nabelek ◽  
Joanna W. Tampas ◽  
Samuel B. Burchfield
Keyword(s):  
Speech Perception ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Noise Level ◽  
Background Noise ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Test Results ◽  
Speech Perception In Noise ◽  
Speech Understanding In Noise ◽  
Hearing Aid Use ◽  
Acceptable Noise Level

Background noise is a significant factor influencing hearing-aid satisfaction and is a major reason for rejection of hearing aids. Attempts have been made by previous researchers to relate the use of hearing aids to speech perception in noise (SPIN), with an expectation of improved speech perception followed by an increased acceptance of hearing aids. Unfortunately, SPIN was not related to hearing-aid use or satisfaction. A new measure of listener reaction to background noise has been proposed. The acceptable noise level (ANL), expressed in decibels, is defined as a difference between the most comfortable listening level for speech and the highest background noise level that is acceptable when listening to and following a story. The ANL measure assumes that speech understanding in noise may not be as important as is the willingness to listen in the presence of noise. It has been established that people who accept background noise have smaller ANLs and tend to be "good" users of hearing aids. Conversely, people who cannot accept background noise have larger ANLs and may only use hearing aids occasionally or reject them altogether. Because this is a new measure, it was important to determine the reliability of the ANL over time with and without hearing aids, to determine the effect of acclimatization to hearing aids, and to compare the ANL to well-established measures such as speech perception scores collected with the SPIN test. Results from 50 listeners indicate that for both good and occasional hearing aid users, the ANL is comparable in reliability to the SPIN test and that both measures do not change with acclimatization. The ANLs and SPIN scores are unrelated. Although the SPIN scores improve with amplification, the ANLs are unaffected by amplification, suggesting that the ANL is inherent to an individual and can be established prior to hearing aid fitting as a possible predictor of hearing-aid use. KEY WORDS : background noise, hearing aids, acceptable noise level, speech perception in noise

scholarly journals Within-Person Variation of Affective Well-Being during and after Exercise: Does the Person–Exercise Fit Matter?

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 549
Author(s):  
Julia Schmid ◽  
Vanessa Gut ◽  
Nina Schorno ◽  
Takuya Yanagida ◽  
Achim Conzelmann
Keyword(s):  
Intraclass Correlation ◽  
Social Contact ◽  
Correlation Coefficients ◽  
Random Order ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Individual Variability ◽  
Affective Responses ◽  
Affective Valence ◽  
Intraclass Correlation Coefficients ◽  
Multi Level

Affective well-being is positively linked to regular exercise. Therefore, it is important to identify the factors that influence intra-individual variability of affective well-being. This study investigated (1) whether affective responses vary within an individual and (2) how affective responses are associated with a motive–incentive fit and a skill–task fit. A total of 107 adults (66% females, Mage = 41.79 years old, 58% doing no exercise) took part in three exercise sessions in a random order. Each session lasted 30 min with a break of 10 min between. The sessions were similarly structured but covered diverse activity incentives (e.g., figure vs. social contact vs. aesthetic movements). Intraclass correlation coefficients showed a very high within-person variation of affective valence and enjoyment across the exercise sessions. The results of multi-level regression analyses revealed that associations between perceived competence, considered to be an indicator of the skill–task fit, and affective well-being were moderate to high, whereas those between motive–incentive fit and affective well-being were low to moderate.

Acceptable Noise Level as a Predictor of Hearing Aid Use

2006 ◽  
Vol 17 (09) ◽  
pp. 626-639 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna K. Nabelek ◽  
Melinda C. Freyaldenhoven ◽  
Joanna W. Tampas ◽  
Samuel B. Burchfield ◽  
Robert A. Muenchen
Keyword(s):  
Time Use ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Noise Level ◽  
Background Noise ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Full Time ◽  
Speech In Noise ◽  
Hearing Aid Use ◽  
Acceptable Noise Level ◽  
Part Time

Acceptable noise level (ANL) measures a listener's reaction to background noise while listening to speech. Relations among hearing aid use and ANL, speech in noise (SPIN) scores, and listener characteristics (age, gender, pure-tone average) were investigated in 191 listeners with hearing impairment. Listeners were assigned to one of three groups based on patterns of hearing aid use: full-time use (whenever hearing aids are needed), part-time use (occasional use), or nonuse. Results showed that SPIN scores and listener characteristics were not related to ANL or hearing aid use. However, ANLs were related to hearing aid use. Specifically, full-time hearing aid users accepted more background noise than part-time users or nonusers, yet part-time users and nonusers could not be differentiated. Thus, a prediction of hearing aid use was examined by comparing part-time users and nonusers (unsuccessful hearing aid users) with full-time users (successful hearing aid users). Regression analysis determined that unaided ANLs could predict a listener's success of hearing aids with 85% accuracy.

scholarly journals The use of a portable metabolic monitoring device for measuring RMR in healthy adults

2020 ◽  
Vol 124 (11) ◽  
pp. 1229-1240 ◽  
Author(s):  
Suey S. Y. Yeung ◽  
Marijke C. Trappenburg ◽  
Carel G. M. Meskers ◽  
Andrea B. Maier ◽  
Esmee M. Reijnierse
Keyword(s):  
Pearson Correlation ◽  
Intraclass Correlation ◽  
Correlation Coefficients ◽  
Random Order ◽  
Monitoring Device ◽  
Individual Level ◽  
Intraclass Correlation Coefficients ◽  
Metabolic Monitoring ◽  
Absolute Agreement ◽  
Highly Correlated

AbstractObjective measurement of RMR may be important for optimal nutritional care but is hindered by the price and practicality of the metabolic monitoring device. This study compared two metabolic monitoring devices for measuring RMR and VO2 and compared the measured RMR with the predicted RMR calculated from equations. RMR was measured using QUARK RMR (reference device) and Fitmate GS (COSMED) in a random order for 30 min, each on fasted participants. In total, sixty-eight adults participated (median age 22 years, interquartile range 21–32). Pearson correlation showed that RMR (r 0·86) and VO2 (r 0·86) were highly correlated between the two devices (P < 0·05). Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) showed good relative agreements regarding RMR (ICC = 0·84) and VO2 (ICC = 0·84) (P < 0·05). RMR measured by QUARK RMR was significantly higher (649 (sd 753) kJ/d) than Fitmate GS. Equations significantly overpredicted RMR. Accurate RMR (i.e. within ±10 % of the RMR measured by QUARK RMR) was found among 38 % of the participants for Fitmate GS and among 46–68 % depending on the equations. Bland–Altman analysis showed a low absolute agreement with QUARK RMR at an individual level for both Fitmate GS (limits of agreement (LOA): −828 to +2125 kJ/d) and equations (LOA ranged from −1979 to +1879 kJ/d). In conclusion, both Fitmate GS and predictive equations had low absolute agreements with QUARK RMR at an individual level. Therefore, these limitations should be considered when determining RMR using Fitmate GS or equations.

scholarly journals A Kit to Facilitate and Standardize the Processing of Sputum for Measurements of Airway Inflammation

2013 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 248-252 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simone Chaboillez ◽  
Angira Dasgupta ◽  
Philippe Prince ◽  
Louis-Philippe Boulet ◽  
Catherine Lemière
Keyword(s):  
Standard Method ◽  
Inflammatory Cell ◽  
Intraclass Correlation ◽  
Correlation Coefficients ◽  
Random Order ◽  
Sputum Specimen ◽  
Laboratory Staff ◽  
Intraclass Correlation Coefficients ◽  
Cell Counts ◽  
Processing Device

BACKGROUND: The use of inflammometry has been shown to be effective for managing asthma. However, sputum processing can be time consuming. Furthermore, methods of sputum processing can vary among facilities. To help with standardization and to simplify the procedure for laboratory staff, a novel, commercially available processing device (Accufilter, Cellometrics Inc, Canada) has been developed.OBJECTIVE: To assess the validity of the Accufilter device and kit for recovery of treated specimens, and for quantitative sputum inflammatory cell counts by comparing intrasample measurements with those using the same procedure without the Accufilter device and kit.METHODS: The present study was a wet laboratory comparison of induced sputum cell counts obtained from sputum processed with versus without the device and kit. Comparisons of each sputum specimen were performed by the same technologist in random order.RESULTS: A total of 39 samples were processed using both the standard method and the Accufilter device. The intraclass correlation coefficients were high for the weight of the filtrate, and for eosinophil and neutrophil differential counts.CONCLUSION: A good degree of agreement of results was apparent when the two methods were compared. The differences noted between both methods were minimal and did not modify clinical interpretation. The use of the Accufilter device and kit can be used in place of the standard method for sputum quantitative analysis, especially in centres with large sample loads.

Interobserver Reliability Using the Phonetic Level Evaluation With Severely and Profoundly Hearing-Impaired Children

1991 ◽  
Vol 34 (5) ◽  
pp. 989-999 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephanie Shaw ◽  
Truman E. Coggins
Keyword(s):  
Interrater Reliability ◽  
Interobserver Reliability ◽  
Intraclass Correlation ◽  
Correlation Coefficients ◽  
Hearing Impaired ◽  
Intraclass Correlation Coefficients ◽  
Assessment Measure ◽  
Impaired Children ◽  
Speech Assessment ◽  
Hearing Impaired Children

This study examines whether observers reliably categorize selected speech production behaviors in hearing-impaired children. A group of experienced speech-language pathologists was trained to score the elicited imitations of 5 profoundly and 5 severely hearing-impaired subjects using the Phonetic Level Evaluation (Ling, 1976). Interrater reliability was calculated using intraclass correlation coefficients. Overall, the magnitude of the coefficients was found to be considerably below what would be accepted in published behavioral research. Failure to obtain acceptably high levels of reliability suggests that the Phonetic Level Evaluation may not yet be an accurate and objective speech assessment measure for hearing-impaired children.

scholarly journals Is there a relationship between the overhead press and split jerk maximum performance? Influence of sex

2021 ◽  
pp. 174795412110204
Author(s):  
Marcos A Soriano ◽  
G Gregory Haff ◽  
Paul Comfort ◽  
Francisco J Amaro-Gahete ◽  
Antonio Torres-González ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Confidence Intervals ◽  
Body Mass ◽  
Upper Limb ◽  
High Reliability ◽  
Intraclass Correlation ◽  
Correlation Coefficients ◽  
Training Experience ◽  
Maximum Performance ◽  
Repetition Maximum ◽  
Intraclass Correlation Coefficients

The aims of this study were to (I) determine the differences and relationship between the overhead press and split jerk performance in athletes involved in weightlifting training, and (II) explore the magnitude of these differences in one-repetition maximum (1RM) performances between sexes. Sixty-one men (age: 30.4 ± 6.7 years; height: 1.8 ± 0.5 m; body mass 82.5 ± 8.5 kg; weightlifting training experience: 3.7 ± 3.5 yrs) and 21 women (age: 29.5 ± 5.2 yrs; height: 1.7 ± 0.5 m; body mass: 62.6 ± 5.7 kg; weightlifting training experience: 3.0 ± 1.5 yrs) participated. The 1RM performance of the overhead press and split jerk were assessed for all participants, with the overhead press assessed on two occasions to determine between-session reliability. The intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and 95% confidence intervals showed a high reliability for the overhead press ICC = 0.98 (0.97 – 0.99). A very strong correlation and significant differences were found between the overhead press and split jerk 1RM performances for all participants (r = 0.90 [0.93 – 0.85], 60.2 ± 18.3 kg, 95.7 ± 29.3 kg, p ≤ 0.001). Men demonstrated stronger correlations between the overhead press and split jerk 1RM performances (r = 0.83 [0.73-0.90], p ≤ 0.001) compared with women (r = 0.56 [0.17-0.80], p = 0.008). These results provide evidence that 1RM performance of the overhead press and split jerk performance are highly related, highlighting the importance of upper-limb strength in the split jerk maximum performance.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document