IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jocnur/v24y2015i23-24p3380-3388.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Discrepancy between self‐assessments and standardised tests of vision and hearing abilities in older people living at home: an ROC curve analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Gro Gade Haanes
  • Marit Kirkevold
  • Dag Hofoss
  • Grethe Eilertsen

Abstract

Aims and objectives To determine whether there is consistency between self‐assessments and standardised tests of vision and hearing abilities in older people. Background Home‐based detection of vision and hearing impairments in older people are generally based on self‐assessments of vision and hearing abilities. Design Cross‐sectional descriptive study. Methods Receiver operating characteristic analysis was used to compare self‐assessments of vision and hearing abilities with a gold‐standard test. The vision and hearing abilities of 93 people aged ≥80 years in the home‐care setting were screened with a LogMAR chart, a pure‐tone audiometer, and a self‐assessment screen. Results Comparison of findings using the cut‐off points on the self‐assessment scale with those of the gold‐standard tests yielded 40 false negatives for vision and 18 false negatives for hearing, indicating that a significant proportion of older people report their vision and hearing abilities as being good when standardised tests indicate that they are not. Alternative cut‐off points on the self‐assessment scale were tested, but no cut‐off point was found to provide a sound basis for identifying vision and hearing impairments. Conclusion The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for self‐assessment of vision was 69%, indicating that the self‐assessment questions constituted a poor test. It appears that results from self‐assessments cannot be relied upon to accurately identify visual acuity. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for the self‐assessment of hearing was 73%, which may therefore be considered a “fair” test. However, self‐assessment of hearing is still insufficient for detecting hearing impairment. Relevance to clinical practice Vision and hearing abilities are crucially important to managing daily living. In addition to treatments for suppressing the further development of existing diseases, standardised tests could be a good starting point for health prevention and promotion. Nurses should apply standardised tests to detect sensory impairments in older people.

Suggested Citation

  • Gro Gade Haanes & Marit Kirkevold & Dag Hofoss & Grethe Eilertsen, 2015. "Discrepancy between self‐assessments and standardised tests of vision and hearing abilities in older people living at home: an ROC curve analysis," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(23-24), pages 3380-3388, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:24:y:2015:i:23-24:p:3380-3388
    DOI: 10.1111/jocn.12967
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.12967
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jocn.12967?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Caban, A.J. & Lee, D.J. & Gómez-Marìn, O. & Lam, B.L. & Zheng, D.D., 2005. "Prevalence of concurrent hearing and visual impairment in US adults: The National Health Interview Survey, 1997-2002," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 95(11), pages 1940-1942.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Annachiara Cavazzana & Anja Röhrborn & Susan Garthus-Niegel & Maria Larsson & Thomas Hummel & Ilona Croy, 2018. "Sensory-specific impairment among older people. An investigation using both sensory thresholds and subjective measures across the five senses," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(8), pages 1-15, August.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:jocnur:v:24:y:2015:i:23-24:p:3380-3388. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2702 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.