Use of comparison populations for evaluating the effectiveness of hearing loss prevention programs

American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal

Volumn 61, Issue 1, 2000, Pages 11-15

  Adera, T ^a   Amir, C ^a   Anderson, L ^a  

^a VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Comparison groups; Evaluation; Hearing loss; Noise

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; AUDIOMETRY; FEMALE; HEARING LOSS; HUMAN; INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE; INDUSTRIAL WORKER; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; NOISE; OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH; OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY; POPULATION RISK; RACE DIFFERENCE; SEX DIFFERENCE;

EID: 0034019621     PISSN: 00028894     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1202/0002-8894(2000)061<0011:uocpfe>2.0.co;2     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. American National Standards Institute: Draft American National Standard: Evaluating the Effectiveness of Hearing Conservation Programs (ANSI S12.13-1991). New York: American National Standards Institute, 1991.
2. Royster, J.D.: An overview of effective hearing conservation programs and an update on audiometric data base analysis. In Proceedings, 1992 Hearing Conservation Conference, April 1-4, 1992. Lexington: University of Kentucky, 1992. pp. 17-20.
3. Morrill, J.C., and M.L. Sterrett: Quality controls for audiometric testing. Occup. Health Safety 50(8):26-33 (1981).
4. Suter, A.H.: The need for and benefits of audiometric data base analysis. J. Accoust. Soc. Am. 81(Suppl.):523 (1987).
5. Adera T., A.M. Donahue, B.D. Malit, and J.C. Gaydos: An epidemiologic method for assessing the effectiveness of hearing conservation programs using audiometric data. Mil. Med. 158:698-701 (1993).
6. Thomas, W.G.: Judging effectiveness of hearing conservation programs. In Hearing Conservation in Industry. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 1985. pp. 178-201.
7. Royster, L.H., and J.D. Royster: Making the most of the audiometric data base. Sound Vib. 18:18-24 (1984).
8. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH): Industrial Audiometric Data Documentation of Computer Tape (revised) (NTIS-DHHS/DF/MT-88/003a). Washington, D.C.: United States Department of Commerce, 1987.
9. Adera, T.A., and J.C. Gaydos: Identifying comparison groups for evaluating occupational hearing loss: A statistical assessment of 22 industrial populations. Am. J. Ind. Med. 31:243-249 (1997).
10. "Occupational Noise Exposure and Hearing Conservation Amendment," Federal Register 48:46: Vol: 9738-9783. (1983).
11. Mantel, N., and W. Haenszel: Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease. JNCI 22:719-748 (1959).
12. Cox, D.R.: Regression Model for Rates and Proportions, 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1972. p. 103.
13. Kleinbaum, D.G.: Survival Analysis: A Self-Learning Text. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1996. pp. 96-98.
14. SAS Institute, Inc. "The PHREG Procedure," In SAS/STAT Software: Changes and Enhancements through Release 6.11. Cary, NC: SAS Institute, Inc., 1996. p. 807.
15. Adera, T., A.M. Donahue, B.D. Malit, and J.C. Gaydos: An epidemiologic method for assessing the effectiveness of hearing conservation programs using audiometric data. Mil. Med. 155:698-701 (1993).