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

Monitoring Workers’ Exposure in Confined Spaces

photo courtesy TSI Incorporated By: Kevin Chase, Contributor Monitoring workers for exposure to respirable particulates, including dust, metals, crystalline silica, welding fumes and diesel particulate matter, ...
Read More

Heat, Hydration & Worker Acceptance

Case Study: How Garney Construction found a heat stress safety solution to fit its diverse workforce and worksites Despite the diversity of locations and workforce, larger ...
Read More

Using Technology for Silica Dust Detection

How real-time data could be the beginning of the end for occupational silicosis. By: Glyn Pierce-Jones, Contributor By providing warnings in real-time, either via local alarms ...
Read More

Follow Us!

Leaders in Industrial Hygiene

AccuTec-IHS
ENMET
HafcoVac
ILC
OHD

Subscribe!

Sign up to receive our industry publications for FREE!

Industrial Hygiene

Construction Safety