Audiograms collected from 821 individuals were used to determine the interrelationships among five systems of determining hearing handicap based upon pure-tone thresholds. These were the American Academy of Ophthalmology and Otolaryngology, the British Association of Otolaryngologists and the British Society of Audiology, the American Medical Association, the industrial, and the full-range averages. A high degree of correlation (average r = .981) was found among the various indices. Using the regressions between all possible pairs of indices, we constructed a table that allows conversion between the various systems involving only very simple computation.
DavisAC. Hearing disorders in the population: First phase findings of the MRC National Study of Hearing. In: LutmanMEHaggardMP, eds. Hearing science and hearing disorders. London, England: Academic Press, 1983: 142–74.
2.
NobleWG. Assessment of impaired hearing: A critique and a new method. New York, NY: Academic Press, 1978.
3.
AlbertiPWMorganPPFriaTJLablancC. Percentage hearing loss: Various schema applied to a large population with noise-induced hearing loss. In: HendersonDHamernikRPDosnjhDSMillsJH, eds. Effects of noise on hearing. New York, NY: Raven Press, 1976: 479–96.
4.
American Academy of Ophthalmology and Otolaryngology. Guide for conservation of hearing. New York, NY: AAOO, 1969.
5.
American Medical Association Council on Physical Medicine. Tentative standard procedure for evaluating the percentage of hearing in medicolegal cases. J Am Med Assoc1947; 133: 396–7.
6.
British Association of Otolaryngologists and British Society of Audiology. BAOL/BSA method for assessment of hearing disability. Br J Audiol1983; 17: 91–4.
7.
SuterAvon GierkeHE. Evaluation and compensation of occupational hearing loss in the United States. In: RossiGVignoneM, eds. L'uomo e il rumore. Turin, Italy: Minerva Medica, 1975: 359–66.
8.
CorenS. Summarizing pure tone hearing thresholds: The equipollence of components of the audiogram. Bull Psychon Soc1989; 27: 42–4.
