In this article, therefore, foundations are first established concerning these metrics along with the first of several aspects of pliability that should be recognized in relation to those metrics. Within the context of screening tests, it is important to avoid misconceptions about sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values. It is recommended for audiologists to perform the simple AW test to verify incomplete or questionable audiograms that are commonly encountered in clinical practice. Both AW and TFW tests are reasonably accurate in assessing patients with CHL. In addition, the kappa statistics revealed substantial agreements between the two tests and PTA (k=0.63-0.72).Д¬onclusion. At 512 Hz (or 500 Hz), the overall accuracy results of TFW and AW tests were 85.1% and 82.4%, respectively. At 256 Hz (or 250 Hz), the overall accuracy values of TFW and AW tests were 81.1% and 86.5%, respectively. TF and AW tests results were then compared with the expected lateralisation from the respective PTA results. For the AW test, the bone vibrator was placed in the middle of the forehead, where 250 Hz and 500 Hz frequencies were tested. TFW test was performed according to the established protocol at 256 Hz and 512 Hz.

In this observational cross-sectional study, seventy-four adults (aged 12-67 years) with unilateral conductive hearing loss (CHL) or bilateral asymmetrical CHL were enrolled. Essentially, the present study aimed to determine the accuracy and agreement between the AW and TFW tests compared to PTA.

Nevertheless, AW and TFW testsвЂ™ performance compared to pure tone audiometry (PTA) has yet to be studied. Compared to the tuning fork Weber (TFW) test, performing the audiometric Weber (AW) test offers many advantages. Weber test is typically conducted using tuning forks, but an audiometer can also be used for a similar purpose.

Weber tuning fork