ArticlePloS one2025
Usability of a hearing test mobile app across generations.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Multi-dimensional evaluation of user-operated audible contrast sensitivity tests towards efficient hearing healthcare services.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.