[0]期刊文章%@ 1438-8871 %I Gunther Eysenbach %V 10 %N 4 %P 32 %T基于互联网的听力测试评估-与现有听力损失检测方法的比较%A Bexelius,Christin %A Honeth,Louise %A Ekman,Alexandra %A Eriksson,Mikael %A Sandin,Sven %A Bagger-Sjöbäck,Dan %A Litton,Jan-Eric %+卡罗林斯卡医学院医学流行病学与生物统计学系，诺贝尔奖väg 12A, SE-171 77斯德哥尔摩，瑞典，+46 8 524 86009，Christin.Bexelius@ki.se %K听力测试%K听力学%K互联网%K问卷调查%K流行病学%K队列研究%D 2008年10月21日背景:临床纯音听力学是最准确测量听力损害的方法。这种方法不适合大规模、以人群为基础的流行病学研究，因为它要求研究参与者到有训练有素人员的诊所就诊。另一种测量听力能力的方法是通过问卷进行自我评估，但与临床听力测试的相关性有所不同。目的:在瑞典猎人协会的560名年龄在20-60岁的成员中，评估基于互联网的听力测试试点与自我评估听力问题的比较，以及使用基于互联网的听力测试和基于互联网的问卷的可行性。方法:在2007年3月向参与者发出邀请，并附上研究网站的URL、个人用户名和密码。该网站包括问卷、听力测试和参与研究的说明。听力测试类似于临床听力图，呈现500至8000hz之间的6个音调。声音在0到60分贝之间，参与者通过按空格键来回应这些声音。听力测试需要耳机，并基于JAVA编程。 Before the participant can start the hearing test, it has to be calibrated against a reference person with good hearing between 15 and 35 years of age. Results: After 5 months, 162 out of 560 (29%) had answered the questionnaire, out of which 88 (16%) had completed the hearing test. Those who actively declined participation numbered 230 out of 560 (41%). After removing duplicates and hearing tests calibrated by unreliable reference data, 61 hearing tests remained for analysis. The prevalence of hearing impairment from the Internet-based hearing test was 20% (12 out of 61), compared to 52% (32 out of 61) from the self-estimated question. Those who completed the hearing test were older than the non-participants, and more had headphones (P = .003) and the correct version of the JAVA program (P = .007) than those who only answered the questionnaire. Conclusions: Though an Internet-based hearing test cannot replace a clinical pure-tone audiogram conducted by a trained audiologist, it is a valid and useful screening tool for hearing ability in a large population carried out at a low cost. %M 18940783 %R 10.2196/jmir.1065 %U //www.mybigtv.com/2008/4/e32/ %U https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.1065 %U http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18940783

map