A comparison of the human voice (“Baah”) test and the automated auditory brainstem response in detecting neonates with hearing loss in a community setting

Objective@#To assess the usage of the “Baah” Test compared to the AABR (Automated Auditory Brainstem Response) in detecting hearing loss of neonates in the community setting. @*Methods@#This is a retrospective cross-sectional study. The targeted sample population are infants less than a month old who underwent screening at a testing facility in Malolos, Bulacan spanning the years 2011 and 2012. @*Results@#A total of 201 infants were included in the study, with a mean age of 10.77 days with a standard deviation of 7.79. The ratio of males to females was almost equal at 1:1.01. For infants who passed hearing screening on at least one ear, 96% (193 infants) correlated with the results of “Baah” testing. For those with bilateral refer results on AABR, 4 out of the 6 correlated with the “Baah” Test. @*Conclusion@#There is potential in using the “Baah” Test as a tool for hearing loss assessment of infants in situations wherein the usual hearing screening tests are inaccessible. It makes use of little resources, and though it does have its limitations in assessing for unilateral hearing loss (as the test cannot test ears in isolation), it would be able to identify infants likely to have bilateral hearing loss.

Accuracy and use of the reflexive behavioral (“Baah”) test and risk factor questionnaire for hearing screening in infants six months old and below

Objective@#To determine the accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values, and use of the Reflexive Behavioral “Baah” Test and NHSRC Level 1 and Level 2 Questionnaires in detecting hearing impairment in rural health communities. @*Methods@#This was a prospective cross-sectional study conducted at the rural health unit of five municipalities. Infants less than six months old were screened for hearing impairments using the OAE device (standard), the Reflexive Behavioral “Baah” test, and the NHSRC Level 1 and Level 2 Questionnaires. The “Baah” test and the filling out of the NHSRC Level 1 and 2 Questionnaires were done by trained health workers while OAE was done by an audiologist. @*Results@#A total of 103 babies, with a mean age of 41.9 days at the time of testing and a male to female ratio of 1.02:1 (52 males and 51 females) were tested. A hearing impairment prevalence of 4.9% (5 out of 103) was noted. The “Baah” test showed to have a sensitivity of 60%, specificity of 97.96% and an accuracy rate of 96.12%. The NHSRC Level 1 and Level 2 Questionnaires showed sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy rate of 40%, 67.35% and 66.02%, respectively for the former and 40%, 85.71% and 83.50%, respectively for the latter. Analysis of the complimentary use of the NHSRC Level 1 and Level 2 Questionnaires with the “Baah” test also showed no significant improvement to using the “Baah” test as a stand-alone screening tool with sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 60%, 67.35% and 66.99%, respectively for the “Baah” test and Level 1 Questionnaire, and 60%, 83.67% and 82.52%, respectively for the “Baah” test and Level 2 Questionnaire. @*Conclusion@#The Reflexive Behavioral “Baah” test is a potentially accurate, sensitive, specific, and acceptable standalone hearing screening test to identify infants with higher risk of hearing impairment in the rural health community setting. On the other hand, the use of the NHSRC Questionnaires as a stand-alone or complementary tool for “Baah” is unnecessary as it results to more false positive and false negative results.