摘要
目的 探讨修改空军招收飞行学员听力检查标准的可行性. 方法 ①收集招收飞行学员听力检查资料5673份,按现行的空军招收飞行学员听力检查标准(标准1)统计听力合格例数及合格率.②将低中频(0.25、0.5、1、2、3 kHz)听力损失不超标准1且双耳高频(4、6、8 kHz)听力损失总和≤270 dB者,按双耳高频听力损失之和的大小分为3组:A组(≤210 dB),B组(＞210 dB且≤240 dB)及C组(＞240 dB且≤270 dB).按5 dB档差统计A组听力较差耳4 kHz听力损失＞45 dB的例数,以及B组和C组听力较差耳4 kHz听力损失≤45 dB的例数.③将标准1高频部分修改为4 kHz听力损失≤45 dB,且双耳高频听力损失总和≤240 dB(标准2),或4 kHz听力损失≤45 dB且双耳高频听力损失总和≤270 dB(标准3).按标准2和标准3统计合格例数及合格率；分别统计符合3个标准的合格者中的0.5、1、2、4 kHz平均听阈＞25 dB的例数及所占百分比.比较3个标准的合格率及合格者中有听力障碍的百分比. 结果 ①按标准1统计,合格5310例.②A组4 kHz听力损失＞45 dB的63例,B组4 kHz听力损失≤45 dB的30例,C组4 kHz听力损失≤45 dB的25例.③按标准1、标准2及标准3统计的合格率分别为93.60％(5310/5673)、93.02％(5277/5673)及93.46％(5302/5673),差异无统计学意义；按标准1、标准2及标准3统计的合格者中0.5、1、2、4 kHz平均听阈＞25 dB的比率分别是2.56％(136/5310)、1.57％(83/5277)及1.77％(94/5302),按标准1统计的比率比标准2、标准3统计均高(x2=12.76、7.77,P＜0.01),而标准2与标准3之间差异无统计学意义. 结论 将现行空军招收飞行学员听力检查标准的高频修改为4 kHz听力损失≤45 dB,双耳高频听力损失之和≤240 dB是科学合理的,既降低了合格者中轻度听力障碍的比例,又对合格率没有明显影响.
Objective To discuss the feasibility of modifying the standard of hearing test for student pilot selection.Methods ①The records of hearing test of 5673 candidates for Air Force student pilot selection were reviewed.Referring to the current standard (defined as Standard 1),the qualifiers and the qualified rate were counted.② Those with the hearing loss at low and middle frequencies (0.25,0.5,1,2,3 kHz) who were in accordance with Standard 1 and the total hearing loss of two ears at high frequencies (4,6,8 kHz) was ≤270 dB were divided into 3 groups according to the hearing loss at high frequencies:Group A (hearing loss≤210 dB),Group B (210 dB＜hearing loss ≤240 dB) and Group C (240 dB ＜hearing loss≤270 dB).Those with hearing loss more than 45 dB at 4 kHz on the worse ear in Group A were counted and those with hearing loss ≤45 dB at 4 kHz on the worse ear in Group B and Group C were counted.③By trying to set the Standard 1 to the Standard 2:that the hearing loss at 4 kHz was ≤45 dB and the total hearing loss of two ears at high frequencies was ≤240 dB,and to the Standard 3.that the hearing loss at 4 kHz was ≤45 dB and the total hearing loss of two ears at high frequencies was ≤270 dB,the qualifiers and the pass rate were counted correspondingly to the new set standards.The qualifiers whose average thresholds of hearing at 0.5,1,2 and 4 kHz were higher than 25 dB were respectively counted referring to Standard 1,Standard 2 and Standard 3.The qualified rate and percentage of hearing disorder in qualifiers were calculated and compared.Results ①According to Standard 1,there were 5310 qualifiers out of 5673 candidates.②There were 63 candidates with hearing loss ＞45 dB at 4 kHz on the worse ear in Group A.There were respectively 30 and 25 candidates whose worse ear hearing loss was ≤45 dB at 4 kHz in Group B and Group C.③ According to Standard 1,Standard 2 and Standard 3,the pass rates were 93.60％ (5310/5673),93.02％ (5277/5673) and 93.46％ (5302/5673),and they were not statistically different each other.The constituent ratio of hearing disorder (average thresholds of hearing at 0.5,1,2 and 4 kHz higher than 25 dB) for the qualifiers was 2.56％ (136/5310),1.57％ (83/5277) and 1.77％ (94/5302) respectively corresponding to 3 standards.Standard 1 let significantly higher constituent ratio compared with that referring to Standard 2 and Standard 3 (x2=12.76,7.77,P＜0.01).The ratio showed insignificant difference between those referencing Stand 2 and Standard 3.Conclusions It is applicable to modify the hearing test standard in student pilot selection as setting the standard of hearing loss to ≤45 dB at 4 kHz and setting the total hearing loss of two ears to ≤ 240 dB in high frequencies.Such changes would be helpful to reduce the percentage of slight hearing disorder in qualifiers and would not influence the passing rate so much.
出处
《中华航空航天医学杂志》
CSCD
2013年第1期-,共4页
Chinese Journal of Aerospace Medicine
