A comparison of test–retest variability and time efficiency of auditory thresholds measured with pure tone audiometry and new early warning test

ObjectiveThe present study measured test–retest variability and time efficiency of an automated hearing assessment method called ‘new early warning test (NEWT)’ incorporated inside a quietpro® hearing protection device (HPD).Study designTest–retest thresholds were obtained with manual pure tone audiometry (PTA) and automated NEWT method. Also, test duration was recorded for PTA and NEWT method. Thirty-two participants having normal hearing in one or both ears were tested with PTA and NEWT at 1, 3, 4 and 6 kHz. Each measurement was repeated to determine test–retest variability and measurement time was recorded.ResultsTest–retest variability for NEWT method was not significantly different from PTA except at 3 kHz (p < 0.05). Recording time for NEWT method was significantly lower (p < 0.001) compared to PTA. Test–retest difference for PTA trials was ⩽5 dB in 82% at 1 and 6 kHz; 85% at 3 kHz and 80% at 4 kHz. For NEWT trials, test–retest difference was ⩽5 dB in 95% at 1 kHz; 72% at 3 and 6 kHz and 77% at 4 kHz.ConclusionsThe NEWT automated method could serve as a reliable and an efficient method to measure auditory thresholds especially in the presence of high background noise.