Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 19, 2026
14:05
Behavioral Assessment of Hearing in 2 to 4 Year-old Children: A Two-interval, Observer-based Procedure Using Conditioned Play-based Responses
Published on: January 23, 2017
Critical analysis of three newborn hearing screening protocols
Vanessa Sabino de Freitas1, Kátia de Freitas Alvarenga, Maria Cecilia Bevilacqua
1Departamento de Fonoaudiologia da Faculdade de Odontologia de Bauru - Universidade de São Paulo. vanfreitas@gmail.com
Pro-Fono : Revista De Atualizacao Cientifica
|October 20, 2009
Summary
Automated auditory brainstem response (AABR) offers better specificity for newborn hearing screening (NHS) than transient evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAE), reducing false positives and improving diagnostic accuracy.
Area of Science:
- Audiology
- Neonatal Care
- Public Health
Background:
- Effective newborn hearing screening (NHS) is crucial for early identification of hearing loss.
- Optimizing NHS protocols balances diagnostic accuracy with cost-effectiveness.
Purpose of the Study:
- To evaluate the specificity and false-positive rates of different NHS protocols.
- Comparison of transient evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAE) and automated auditory brainstem response (AABR) methods.
Main Methods:
- Analysis of three NHS protocols in 200 newborns screened between March and July 2006.
- Protocol 1: Two-step TEOAE.
- Protocol 2: Two-step AABR.
- Protocol 3: One-step TEOAE followed by AABR retest.
Main Results:
- While referral rates to audiology diagnosis showed no significant difference between TEOAE and AABR, TEOAE referred four times more newborns.
- Protocol 3 (TEOAE followed by AABR) had the highest referral rate, significantly higher than Protocols 1 and 2.
Conclusions:
- Automated auditory brainstem response (AABR) demonstrated superior specificity and a lower false-positive rate compared to transient evoked otoacoustic emissions (TEOAE).
- The combined TEOAE and AABR protocol resulted in the highest false-positive rate, indicating lower specificity.
