Hypothesis Tests for Continuous Audiometric Threshold Data

Abstract

Objectives: Hypothesis tests for hearing threshold data may be challenging due to the special structure of the response variable, which consists of the measurements from the participant's two ears at multiple frequencies. The commonly-used methods may have inflated type I error rates for the global test that examines whether exposure-hearing threshold associations exist in at least one of the frequencies. We propose using both-ear methods, including all frequencies in the same model for hypothesis testing.

Design: We compared the both-ear method to commonly used single-ear methods, such as the worse-ear, better-ear, left/right-ear, average-ear methods, and both-ear methods that evaluate individual audiometric frequencies in separate models, through both theoretical consideration and a simulation study. Differences between the methods were illustrated using hypothesis tests for the associations between the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension adherence score and 3-year change in hearing thresholds among participants in the Conservation of Hearing Study.

Results: We found that (1) in the absence of ear-level confounders, the better-ear, worse-ear and left/right-ear methods have less power for frequency-specific tests and for the global test; (2) in the presence of ear-level confounders, the better-ear and worse-ear methods are invalid, and the left/right-ear and average-ear methods have less power, with the power loss in the left/right-ear much greater than the average-ear method, for frequency-specific tests and for the global test; and (3) the both-ear method with separate analyses for individual frequencies is invalid for the global test.

Conclusions: For hypothesis testing to evaluate whether there are significant associations between an exposure of interest and audiometric hearing threshold measurements, the both-ear method that includes all frequencies in the same model is the recommended analytic approach.