ASA S12 13 TR-2002 American National Standard Evaluating the Effectiveness of Hearing Conservation Programs through Audiometric Data Base Analysis《通过听力测定的数据分析评估听觉保护项目的有效性》.pdf

《ASA S12 13 TR-2002 American National Standard Evaluating the Effectiveness of Hearing Conservation Programs through Audiometric Data Base Analysis《通过听力测定的数据分析评估听觉保护项目的有效性》.pdf》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《ASA S12 13 TR-2002 American National Standard Evaluating the Effectiveness of Hearing Conservation Programs through Audiometric Data Base Analysis《通过听力测定的数据分析评估听觉保护项目的有效性》.pdf（33页珍藏版）》请在麦多课文档分享上搜索。

1、ANSI S12.13 TR2002ANSI TECHNICAL REPORTEvaluating the Effectiveness of Hearing ConservationPrograms through Audiometric Data Base AnalysisAccredited Standards Committee S12, NoiseAcoustical Society of AmericaStandards Secretariat1305 Walt Whitman Road, Suite 300 Melville, New York 11747ANSI S12.13 T

2、R2002Reaffirmed by ANSI January 24, 2011 5HDIILUPHGE$16,-DQXDUThe American National Standards Institute, Inc. (ANSI) is thenational coordinator of voluntary standards development and theclearinghouse in the U.S.A. for information on national and inter-national standards.The Acoustical Society of Ame

3、rica (ASA) is an organization of scien-tists and engineers formed in 1929 to increase and diffuse the knowl-edge of acoustics and to promote its practical applications.ANSI Technical ReportEvaluating the Effectiveness ofHearing Conservation Programsthrough Audiometric Data Base AnalysisSecretariatAc

4、oustical Society of AmericaANSI Technical Report Registered: 26 August 2002American National Standards Institute, Inc.ABSTRACTThis ANSI Technical Report describes methods for evaluating the effectiveness of hearing conservationprograms in preventing occupational noise-induced hearing loss by using t

5、echniques for audiometric database analysis. The rationale is given for using the variability of threshold measurements in annual monitoringaudiograms as the basis for judging effectiveness. Guidelines are discussed concerning how to select arestricted data base to which the analysis procedures will

6、 be applied. Specific procedures for data analysisare defined, and criterion ranges are given for classifying program effectiveness as acceptable, marginal, orunacceptable. Sample results for industrial audiometric data bases contributed to Working GroupS12/WG12 are included as an annex for referenc

7、e and illustration.ANSI S12.13 TR - 2002AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARDS ON ACOUSTICSThe Acoustical Society of America (ASA) provides the Secretariat for AccreditedStandards Committees S1 on Acoustics, S2 on Mechanical Vibration and Shock, S3 onBioacoustics, and S12 on Noise. These committees have wide r

8、epresentation from thetechnical community (manufacturers, consumers, trade associations, general-interestand government representatives). The standards are published by the AcousticalSociety of America through the American Institute of Physics as American NationalStandards after approval by their re

9、spective standards committees and the AmericanNational Standards Institute. These standards are developed and published as a public service to provide standardsuseful to the public, industry, and consumers, and to federal, state and local govern-ments.Each of the Accredited Standards Committees oper

10、ating in accordance with proce-dures approved by American National Standards Institute (ANSI) is responsible fordeveloping, voting upon, and maintaining or revising its own standards. The ASAStandards Secretariat administers committee organization and activity, and providesliaison between the Accred

11、ited Standards Committees and ANSI. After the standardshave been produced and adopted by the Accredited Standards Committees, andapproved as American National Standards by ANSI, the ASA Standards Secretariatarranges for their publication and distribution.An American National Standard implies a conse

12、nsus of those substantially concernedwith its scope and provisions. Consensus is established when, in the judgment of theANSI Board of Standards Review, substantial agreement has been reached by directlyand materially affected interests. Substantial agreement means much more than a sim-ple majority,

13、 but not necessarily unanimity. Consensus requires that all views andobjections be considered, and that a concerted effort be made toward their resolution.The use of an American National Standard is completely voluntary. Their existencedoes not in any respect preclude anyone, whether he has approved

14、 the standards ornot, from manufacturing, marketing, purchasing, or using products, processes, or pro-cedures not conforming to the standards.NOTICE: This Technical Report may be revised or withdrawn at any time. The proce-dures of the American National Standards Institute require that action be tak

15、en peri-odically to reaffirm, revise, or withdraw a standard.Standards SecretariatAcoustical Society of America35 Pinelawn Road, Suite 114EMelville, New York 11747-3177Telephone 631-390-0215FAX 631-390-0217E-mail asastdsaip.org 2002 by the Acoustical Society of America. This technical report may not

16、 be repro-duced in whole or in part in any form for sale, promotion, or any commercial purpose,or any purpose not falling within the provisions of the Copyright Act of 1976, withoutprior written permission of the publisher. For permission, address a request to theStandards Secretariat of the Acousti

17、cal Society of America.iContentsPageForeword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .iv0 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

18、 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10.1 Need . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10.2 Rationale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

19、. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10.3 Alternative Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10.4 Brief Historical Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

20、 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20.5 Report Development Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20.6 Benefits of ADBA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

21、 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20.6.1 Enhancing Prevention of Noise-Induced Hearing Loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20.6.2 Providing Cost-Effective Data for Regulatory Compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30.6.3

22、Guiding Internal Management Decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30.6.4 Motivating Workers and Supervisors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41 Scope, purpose and applications . . . . . . . .

23、 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41.1 Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41.2 Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

24、 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41.3 Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41.3.1 Assumptions . . . . . . . . . .

25、. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41.3.1.1 Effective Hearing Conservation Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41.3.1.2 Audiometric Variability as an Indicator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

26、 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41.3.1.3 Analysis of a Restricted Data Base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51.3.1.4 Reliance on ADBA Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51.3.1.5 Interpretatio

27、n of Undesirable Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51.3.2 Data Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51.3.2.1 Annual Audiometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

28、 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51.3.2.2 Constant Restricted Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51.3.2.3 Minimum Number of Audiograms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51

29、.3.2.4 Representative Restricted Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51.3.2.5 Minimum Size of Restricted Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51.3.2.6 Identification of Obvious Contaminants in the Data . . . .

30、 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51.3.2.7 Audiometric Testing During Workshifts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

31、. . . . . . . . . .63 Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .74 Recommended ADBA Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

32、. . . . . . . . . . . . . .74.1 Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .74.2 Criterion Ranges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

33、. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75 Implementing the Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75.1 Selecting the Restricted Data Base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

34、 . . . . . . . . . . .75.1.1 Early Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .85.1.2 Later Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

35、 . . . . . . .85.2 Examining the Data for Contamination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .85.3 Applying the ADBA Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .85.3.1 Per

36、cent Worse Sequential (%Ws) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .85.3.2 Percent Better or Worse Sequential (%BWs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .86 Interpreting the Results . . . . . . . . . . . . .

37、 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .96.1 Classifying HCP Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .96.2 Identifying Sources of High Variability . . . .

38、 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9iiAnnexesA Population Comparison ADBA Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9A.1 Comparisons at One Point in Time . . . . . . . . . . . . .

39、 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9A.2 Comparisons of Longitudinal Hearing Level Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10A.3 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

40、. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10B Rates of OSHA STS as an Indicator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10B.1 Common Use of STS Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

41、. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10B.2 Reasons for Excluding STS Rates from this Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10B.3 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

42、. . . . . . . . . . . . . .10C Research Performed by S12/WG12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11C.1 Data Tape Availability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

43、. . . . . . . . . .11C.2 Procedures Evaluated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11C.3 Recommended Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

44、. . .12C.4 Data Base Comparisons Used to Define Criterion Ranges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12C.5 Defining the Criterion Ranges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13C.6 Conclusions and Recom

45、mendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13C.7 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13D Analysis Example . . . . . . . . . .

46、 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17Tables Table 1 Criterion ranges (in percent) for rating HCP performance using the values of the statistics Percent Worse Sequential (%Ws) and Percent Better or Worse Sequential (%BWs

47、) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7Table D1 Steps in implementing ADBA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17Table D2 Example of determining whether an individual employee will be included in the Percent Worsesequentia

48、l (%Ws) and Percent Better or Worse sequential (%BWs) statistics in each of three sequential test comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17iiiFigures Fig. 1 Sequence of events in a workers noise exposure history showin

49、g how ADBA indicates an inadequate degree of employee protection before a confirmed OSHA STS develops . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3Fig. C1 Distribution of %Wsvalues in sequential comparisons of tests 1-4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14Fig. C2 Distribution of %Wsvalues in sequential comparisons of tests 5-8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14Fig. C3 Distribution of %BWsvalues in sequential comparisons of tests 5-8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14Fig. C4 Distribution of percent A