Abstract
The recent paper by Prince et al. [J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 101, 950-963 (1997)] uses as a primary outcome measure an estimate of hearing handicap based on a weighted average of pure tone thresholds at 1,2, 3, and 4 kHz. This choice is unusual and inadequately justified. If four equally weighted frequencies are to be chosen, the ANSI standard referenced by Prince et al. would suggest 0.5, 1, 2, and 4 kHz. If 1, 2, 3, and 4 kHz are chosen, the weights from ANSI 3.5, 1969 would be very different from those used by Prince et al.
| Original language | English (US) |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 2734-2735 |
| Number of pages | 2 |
| Journal | Journal of the Acoustical Society of America |
| Volume | 103 |
| Issue number | 5 PART I |
| State | Published - Dec 1 1998 |
Fingerprint
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous)
- Acoustics and Ultrasonics
Cite this
Dobie, R. A. (1998). Comments on "A re-examination of risk estimates from the NIOSH occupational noise and hearing survey" [J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 101, 950-963 (1997)]. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 103(5 PART I), 2734-2735.