Back

How Users of Different Ages Rate a Mobile App for Self-Testing of Hearing

Pastucha, M.; Gos, E.; Kochanek, K.; Skarzynski, H.; Jedrzejczak, W. W.

2025-01-28 public and global health
10.1101/2025.01.27.25321176 medRxiv
Show abstract

IntroductionTraditional diagnostic methods of hearing assessment, such as pure tone audiometry, may not be equally accessible to everyone due to geographical or mobility limitations. Utilizing a mobile application (app) for self-assessment of hearing is a promising alternative. However, the effectiveness of apps, as well as their usability across different age groups, remains largely unexplored. The objective of the present study was to assess, across different age groups, the usability of the "Hearing Test" app which allows self-testing of hearing on a mobile phone. Materials and methodsThe study was conducted on 77 participants from three age groups (16-39 years, 40-59 years, 60 years and older) who self-tested their hearing thresholds using the mobile app and who later underwent pure tone audiometry with an audiologist. The usability of the app was evaluated using a questionnaire based on the Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS), which was complemented by participant observation and interview. ResultsThe app generally yielded results comparable to pure tone audiometry. However, older age groups tended to report higher levels of difficulty across several usability dimensions. Specifically, the oldest group rated the app lower in terms of functionality (M = 2.30; SD = 1.27) and engagement-customization (M = 2.11; SD = 1.28). For the oldest participants, the greatest difficulties related to installation (48%), and interpretation of results (26%). None of the participants aged 60 or older were able to complete the test independently, in contrast to 67% of the youngest participants and 28% of the middle-aged who did not require assistance. All age groups expressed a preference for a conventional hearing test over an app-based assessment, although the youngest group showed the greatest openness to using mobile apps. ConclusionsThe "Hearing Test" app has demonstrated its potential as a tool for initial hearing assessment, particularly among younger users. However, older individuals often encounter difficulties with installation, interpretation of results, and overall usability. Adapting the interface to meet the specific needs of older users, including user-friendly tutorials and clear presentation of results, is crucial for enhancing its usability.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
JMIR Formative Research
32 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
24.0%
2
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 8%
19.8%
3
Ear & Hearing
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
5.2%
4
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 26%
4.6%
50% of probability mass above
5
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.8%
6
BMC Research Notes
29 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.5%
7
PLOS Digital Health
91 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.2%
8
Frontiers in Digital Health
20 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
2.2%
9
JMIR mHealth and uHealth
10 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.0%
10
Hearing Research
49 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.8%
11
Journal of Neural Engineering
197 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.8%
12
npj Genomic Medicine
33 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.4%
13
Frontiers in Neuroscience
223 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.3%
14
Frontiers in Psychiatry
83 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.2%
15
JMIR Public Health and Surveillance
45 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.2%
16
Frontiers in Neurology
91 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
17
Trials
25 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
18
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.9%
19
Cureus
67 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
20
F1000Research
79 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
21
Applied Sciences
24 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.8%
22
Trends in Hearing
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
0.8%
23
Journal of Clinical Medicine
91 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.8%
24
DIGITAL HEALTH
12 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.7%
25
Emergency Medicine Journal
20 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.7%
26
Brain Sciences
52 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.5%
27
Open Research Europe
14 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.5%