Impact of Language Barriers and Age on English Hearing Test App Accuracy for Polish Users.

IF 1.8 Q2 OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY OTO Open Pub Date : 2024-11-19 eCollection Date: 2024-10-01 DOI:10.1002/oto2.70047
Małgorzata Pastucha, Elżbieta Gos, Henryk Skarżyński, W Wiktor Jedrzejczak
{"title":"Impact of Language Barriers and Age on English Hearing Test App Accuracy for Polish Users.","authors":"Małgorzata Pastucha, Elżbieta Gos, Henryk Skarżyński, W Wiktor Jedrzejczak","doi":"10.1002/oto2.70047","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The development of health applications (apps) includes those for testing hearing, although most of them are available only in English. This study investigates whether poor English language proficiency creates a barrier for Polish users in the accuracy of such an app in measuring self-determined hearing thresholds.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>The study compared hearing thresholds measured by an English-language app and a professionally conducted reference test, with attention to participants' English proficiency and age.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>The English-language app \"Hearing test, Audiogram,\" was used to determine hearing thresholds. A reference test was performed by an audiologist using specialized equipment.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Participants were 87 nonnative English language speakers aged 16 to 88. They were divided into 3 groups based on their proficiency in English: no knowledge (Group 1), basic (Group 2), and advanced (Group 3). The mean differences between hearing thresholds determined using the app and the reference tests were measured for each group.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The accuracy of the results varied according to the level of English proficiency. A statistically significant difference was found between Group 1 (no knowledge) and Group 3 (advanced), with mean differences of 13.6, 9.3, and 6.7 dB for Groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively, meaning that discrepancies were larger in the less proficient groups. However, when participant age was considered, language proficiency was less important and was no longer a significant factor.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study revealed that English language proficiency does affect the accuracy of mobile app-based hearing tests, but age of the user is also important.</p>","PeriodicalId":19697,"journal":{"name":"OTO Open","volume":"8 4","pages":"e70047"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11574669/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"OTO Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/oto2.70047","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: The development of health applications (apps) includes those for testing hearing, although most of them are available only in English. This study investigates whether poor English language proficiency creates a barrier for Polish users in the accuracy of such an app in measuring self-determined hearing thresholds.

Study design: The study compared hearing thresholds measured by an English-language app and a professionally conducted reference test, with attention to participants' English proficiency and age.

Setting: The English-language app "Hearing test, Audiogram," was used to determine hearing thresholds. A reference test was performed by an audiologist using specialized equipment.

Methods: Participants were 87 nonnative English language speakers aged 16 to 88. They were divided into 3 groups based on their proficiency in English: no knowledge (Group 1), basic (Group 2), and advanced (Group 3). The mean differences between hearing thresholds determined using the app and the reference tests were measured for each group.

Results: The accuracy of the results varied according to the level of English proficiency. A statistically significant difference was found between Group 1 (no knowledge) and Group 3 (advanced), with mean differences of 13.6, 9.3, and 6.7 dB for Groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively, meaning that discrepancies were larger in the less proficient groups. However, when participant age was considered, language proficiency was less important and was no longer a significant factor.

Conclusion: This study revealed that English language proficiency does affect the accuracy of mobile app-based hearing tests, but age of the user is also important.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
语言障碍和年龄对波兰用户英语听力测试应用程序准确性的影响。
目的:健康应用程序(Apps)的开发包括听力测试应用程序,尽管大多数应用程序只有英语版本。本研究调查了英语语言能力差是否会对波兰用户使用此类应用程序测量自定听力阈值的准确性造成障碍:研究设计:比较英语应用程序和专业参考测试测量的听力阈值,并关注参与者的英语水平和年龄:使用英语应用程序 "Hearing test, Audiogram "测定听阈。方法:由听力学家使用专业设备进行参考测试:参与者为 87 名英语非母语者,年龄在 16 至 88 岁之间。根据英语熟练程度将他们分为三组:无知组(第 1 组)、基础组(第 2 组)和高级组(第 3 组)。每组都测量了使用应用程序测定的听力阈值与参考测试结果之间的平均差异:结果:结果的准确性因英语水平而异。第 1 组(无知识)和第 3 组(高级)之间的差异具有统计学意义,第 1 组、第 2 组和第 3 组的平均差异分别为 13.6、9.3 和 6.7 分贝,这意味着英语水平较低的组别的差异更大。然而,当考虑到受试者的年龄时,语言能力就不那么重要了,不再是一个重要因素:本研究表明,英语水平确实会影响基于手机应用的听力测试的准确性,但用户的年龄也很重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
OTO Open
OTO Open Medicine-Surgery
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
115
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊最新文献
Effects of Music on Pain and Anxiety During Otolaryngology Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Impact of Language Barriers and Age on English Hearing Test App Accuracy for Polish Users. Epidemiology of Barbell Weightlifting-Related Head and Neck Injuries in the United States: A 10-Year Analysis of National Injury Data. Beyond Tobacco: Bridging Gaps in Social History Records for Tobacco-Free Nicotine Pouch Consumers. Clinical and Histological Differences Between Choanal Polyps in Children and Adults: A 15-Year Retrospective Study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1