This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

PHILLIP H. KALEIDA, MD; CLYDE G. SMITH, MS
Pittsburgh

Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1986;112(10):1109.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

To the Editor.—In the December 1985 issue of the ARCHIVES, Pearlman et al¹ presented information regarding the validity of a commercially available sound-generating otoscope (Audio-Scope). The authors evaluated agreement between audiometric testing and the AudioScope but offered no test-retest data, ie, assessment of reliability or "repeatability" of measurements (as defined by Fletcher et al²).

Information necessary for more meaningful evaluation of the Audio-Scope was not included in the "Subjects and Methods" section. It would be important to know the total number of enrolled subjects, how many subjects had only one ear tested, the number of subjects in each hearing group, and the method of subject selection (eg, random, consecutive, or cooperative patients). It would also be important to know the sequence of test procedures for each subject, the method used to determine that sequence, and whether the test procedures were conducted by independent observers.

The "Results" section . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?