| Title |
Development and evaluation of an audiology app for iPhone/iPad mobile devices
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Acta Oto-Laryngologica (Supplement), July 2015
|
| DOI | 10.3109/00016489.2015.1063786 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Francisco Larrosa, Julio Rama-Lopez, Jesus Benitez, Jose M. Morales, Asuncion Martinez, Miguel A. Alañon, Diego Arancibia-Tagle, Angel Batuecas-Caletrio, Marta Martinez-Lopez, Nicolas Perez-Fernandez, Carlos Gimeno, Angel Ispizua, Alberto Urrutikoetxea, Jorge Rey-Martinez |
| Abstract |
The application described in this study appears to be accurate and valid, thus allowing calculation of a hearing handicap and assessment of the pure-tone air conduction threshold with iPhone/iPad devices. To develop and evaluate a newly developed professional, computer-based hearing handicap calculator and a manual hearing sensitivity assessment test for the iPhone and iPad (AudCal). Multi-center prospective non-randomized validation study. One hundred and ten consecutive adult participants underwent two hearing evaluations, a standard audiometry and a pure-tone air conduction test using AudCal with an iOS device. The hearing handicap calculation accuracy was evaluated comparing AudCal vs a web-based calculator. Hearing loss was found in 83 and 84 out of 220 standard audiometries and AudCal hearing tests (Cohen's Kappa = 0.89). The mean difference between AudCal and standard audiogram thresholds was -0.21 ± 6.38 dB HL. Excellent reliability and concordance between standard audiometry and the application's hearing loss assessment test were obtained (Cronbach's alpha = 0.96; intra-class correlation coefficient = 0.93). AudCal vs a web-based calculator were perfectly correlated (Pearson's r = 1). |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 4 | 44% |
| Uruguay | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 4 | 44% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 89% |
| Scientists | 1 | 11% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 115 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 114 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 21 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 10% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 9 | 8% |
| Researcher | 8 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 7 | 6% |
| Other | 20 | 17% |
| Unknown | 38 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 24 | 21% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 15 | 13% |
| Engineering | 4 | 3% |
| Arts and Humanities | 3 | 3% |
| Environmental Science | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 20 | 17% |
| Unknown | 46 | 40% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 May 2020.
All research outputs
#5,239,707
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Acta Oto-Laryngologica (Supplement)
#93
of 1,824 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#61,177
of 276,658 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Acta Oto-Laryngologica (Supplement)
#1
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,824 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 276,658 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.