Age “Correction” in Hearing Conservation Programs

© peterschreiber.media – stock.adobe.com

By: Gregory A. Flamme and Kristy K. Deiters, Contributors

Employers may elect to adjust observed hearing threshold changes as an attempt to account for typical age-related change. However, there is no guarantee that age “correction” correctly represents the influence of age, and adjusted threshold shifts are not interpretable for individuals or small groups—because age-related changes vary widely across people. Further, age adjustments are only valid if they represent longitudinal trends.

Age-adjustment tables currently included in U.S. regulations are based on differences between small groups of people in the 1970s. Thus, employers choosing to age-adjust audiograms are making an implicit assumption that 1970s cross-sectional trends represent current age-related changes. Employers should carefully consider whether this assumption is reasonable.

We have recently developed age-adjustment tables using nationally representative data and validated them using a large occupational hearing conservation database (Flamme et al., 2019). These tables represent current population trends; account for differences in race/ethnicity; span ages 18 to 85 years; and match (within one 5dB audiometric step) median longitudinal changes among male workers through 30 years on the job.

Shallower cross-sectional trends were observed for people identifying with non-Hispanic Black race/ethnicity, and overall trends imply substantially less age-related change in hearing thresholds than is assumed in current U.S. regulations [see chart]. Employers applying 1970s-based age adjustments will substantially overestimate current age-related effects, and threshold shifts due to other factors (e.g., occupational/non-occupational exposure, disease) would be missed.

Regulations have not been modified to include recent adjustment tables, so employers must either (1) use tables that do not represent current trends; or (2) forego age adjustment. NIOSH has advised against using age “corrections” for decades and recent findings support that advice.

[Gregory A. Flamme and Kristy K. Deiters, are with Stephenson & Stephenson Research & Consulting Researchers are also and National Hearing Conservation Association (NHCA) Experts. Visit NHCA at: https://www.hearingconservation.org/]

Share on Socials!

Related Articles

Related Articles

A More Effective Silica Exposure Monitoring Approach

By: Logan Myers, Contributor If you work in an industry like construction, mining, oil and gas, or concrete, you have probably asked yourself the question: “How ...
Read More

Mobile is the Next Frontier In Employee Safety

Ben Kanner, Co-Founder and CEO of Worklete Mobile device use is now ubiquitous in the working world, allowing everyone to stay connected, whether employees are at ...
Read More

Heat Stress Guide for Employers

“Heat related illnesses are preventable with the right tools and controls. At TSI®, our QUESTemp° Heat Stress Monitors are designed to quickly and accurately evaluate potential ...
Read More