American Journal of Audiology Vol.21 60-75 June 2012. doi:10.1044/1059-0889(2012/11-0037)
© American Speech-Language-Hearing Association
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrowCustom Print
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow My Folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Emanuel, D. C.
Right arrow Articles by Knapp, R. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Emanuel, D. C.
Right arrow Articles by Knapp, R. R.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Delicious   Add to Digg   Add to Facebook   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Survey of Audiological Immittance Practices

Diana C. Emanuela, Olivia E. C. Hensonb and Rita R. Knappa

a Towson University, Towson, MD
b ENT and Allergy Specialists of VA, Ashburn

Correspondence to Diana C. Emanuel: demanuel{at}towson.edu

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to examine current immittance practices and trends over time, reasons why multifrequency (MF) and multicomponent (MC) tympanometry have been underused, and the prevalence of negative patient reactions to acoustic reflex (AR) testing.

Method: Two audiological practice surveys were conducted regarding tympanometry (2008, n = 156) and AR (2009, n = 90).

Results: Most respondents conduct tympanometry and AR threshold (ART) testing. MF and MC tympanometry were rarely reported, generally due to a lack of equipment and training. ART testing was reported most often using both ipsilateral and contralateral presentation. Contralateral testing has decreased over time. Patient complaints of discomfort following AR testing were common. Complaints of tinnitus or hearing loss were present, although rare.

Conclusion: Tympanometry and ART tests have remained popular for the past 30 years, whereas acoustic reflex decay (ARD) testing has decreased in popularity. MF and MC tympanometry are conducted infrequently. AR is frequently associated with discomfort but rarely associated with other symptoms. However, one respondent reported that AR testing had caused permanent tinnitus and hearing loss.

Key Words: multicomponent tympanometry, multifrequency tympanometry, immittance, audiological practice, acoustic reflex


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Delicious Delicious   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Facebook Facebook   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?