中华航空航天医学杂志
中華航空航天醫學雜誌
중화항공항천의학잡지
CHINESE JOURNAL OF AEROSPACE MEDICINE
2013年
1期
52-55
,共4页
汪运坤%徐先荣%叶晓军%郑瑶
汪運坤%徐先榮%葉曉軍%鄭瑤
왕운곤%서선영%협효군%정요
听力检查%合格鉴定%人员选用%参考标准
聽力檢查%閤格鑒定%人員選用%參攷標準
은력검사%합격감정%인원선용%삼고표준
Hearing test%Eligibility determination%Personnel selection%Reference standard
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.
目的 探討脩改空軍招收飛行學員聽力檢查標準的可行性. 方法 ①收集招收飛行學員聽力檢查資料5673份,按現行的空軍招收飛行學員聽力檢查標準(標準1)統計聽力閤格例數及閤格率.②將低中頻(0.25、0.5、1、2、3 kHz)聽力損失不超標準1且雙耳高頻(4、6、8 kHz)聽力損失總和≤270 dB者,按雙耳高頻聽力損失之和的大小分為3組:A組(≤210 dB),B組(＞210 dB且≤240 dB)及C組(＞240 dB且≤270 dB).按5 dB檔差統計A組聽力較差耳4 kHz聽力損失＞45 dB的例數,以及B組和C組聽力較差耳4 kHz聽力損失≤45 dB的例數.③將標準1高頻部分脩改為4 kHz聽力損失≤45 dB,且雙耳高頻聽力損失總和≤240 dB(標準2),或4 kHz聽力損失≤45 dB且雙耳高頻聽力損失總和≤270 dB(標準3).按標準2和標準3統計閤格例數及閤格率；分彆統計符閤3箇標準的閤格者中的0.5、1、2、4 kHz平均聽閾＞25 dB的例數及所佔百分比.比較3箇標準的閤格率及閤格者中有聽力障礙的百分比. 結果 ①按標準1統計,閤格5310例.②A組4 kHz聽力損失＞45 dB的63例,B組4 kHz聽力損失≤45 dB的30例,C組4 kHz聽力損失≤45 dB的25例.③按標準1、標準2及標準3統計的閤格率分彆為93.60％(5310/5673)、93.02％(5277/5673)及93.46％(5302/5673),差異無統計學意義；按標準1、標準2及標準3統計的閤格者中0.5、1、2、4 kHz平均聽閾＞25 dB的比率分彆是2.56％(136/5310)、1.57％(83/5277)及1.77％(94/5302),按標準1統計的比率比標準2、標準3統計均高(x2=12.76、7.77,P＜0.01),而標準2與標準3之間差異無統計學意義. 結論 將現行空軍招收飛行學員聽力檢查標準的高頻脩改為4 kHz聽力損失≤45 dB,雙耳高頻聽力損失之和≤240 dB是科學閤理的,既降低瞭閤格者中輕度聽力障礙的比例,又對閤格率沒有明顯影響.
목적 탐토수개공군초수비행학원은력검사표준적가행성. 방법 ①수집초수비행학원은력검사자료5673빈,안현행적공군초수비행학원은력검사표준(표준1)통계은력합격례수급합격솔.②장저중빈(0.25、0.5、1、2、3 kHz)은력손실불초표준1차쌍이고빈(4、6、8 kHz)은력손실총화≤270 dB자,안쌍이고빈은력손실지화적대소분위3조:A조(≤210 dB),B조(＞210 dB차≤240 dB)급C조(＞240 dB차≤270 dB).안5 dB당차통계A조은력교차이4 kHz은력손실＞45 dB적례수,이급B조화C조은력교차이4 kHz은력손실≤45 dB적례수.③장표준1고빈부분수개위4 kHz은력손실≤45 dB,차쌍이고빈은력손실총화≤240 dB(표준2),혹4 kHz은력손실≤45 dB차쌍이고빈은력손실총화≤270 dB(표준3).안표준2화표준3통계합격례수급합격솔；분별통계부합3개표준적합격자중적0.5、1、2、4 kHz평균은역＞25 dB적례수급소점백분비.비교3개표준적합격솔급합격자중유은력장애적백분비. 결과 ①안표준1통계,합격5310례.②A조4 kHz은력손실＞45 dB적63례,B조4 kHz은력손실≤45 dB적30례,C조4 kHz은력손실≤45 dB적25례.③안표준1、표준2급표준3통계적합격솔분별위93.60％(5310/5673)、93.02％(5277/5673)급93.46％(5302/5673),차이무통계학의의；안표준1、표준2급표준3통계적합격자중0.5、1、2、4 kHz평균은역＞25 dB적비솔분별시2.56％(136/5310)、1.57％(83/5277)급1.77％(94/5302),안표준1통계적비솔비표준2、표준3통계균고(x2=12.76、7.77,P＜0.01),이표준2여표준3지간차이무통계학의의. 결론 장현행공군초수비행학원은력검사표준적고빈수개위4 kHz은력손실≤45 dB,쌍이고빈은력손실지화≤240 dB시과학합리적,기강저료합격자중경도은력장애적비례,우대합격솔몰유명현영향.
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.
