The effects of training format on earplug performance

References

• Abel S.M., Odell P. Sound attenuation from earmuffs and earplugs in combination: Maximum benefits vs. missed information. Aviat Space Environ Med 2006; 77: 899–904
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• American National Standards Institute 1996. Specification for Audiometers ( ANSI S3.6-1996). Melville, NY: American National Standards Institute.
   Google Scholar
• American National Standards Institute 1997. Measuring the Real-ear Attenuation of Hearing Protectors (ANSI S12.6-1997) Melville, NY: American National Standards Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Behar A. Field evaluation of hearing protectors. Noise Control Engineering Journal 1985; 24(1)13–18
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berger E.H., Franks J.R., Lindgren F. International review of field studies of hearing protector attenuation. Scientific Basis of Noise-induced Hearing Loss, A. Axelsson, H. Borchgrevink, R.P. Hamernik, P. Hellstrom, D. Henderson, R.J. Salvi. Thieme Medical, New York 1996; 361–377
   Google Scholar
• Berger E.H., Franks J.R., Behar A., Casali J.G., Dixon-Ernst C., et al. Development of a new standard laboratory protocol for estimating the field attenuation of hearing protection devices. Part III. The validity of using subject-fit data. J Acoust Soc Am 1998; 103: 665–672
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berger E.H. Hearing protection devices. The Noise Manual, E.H. Berger, L.H. Royster, J.D. Royster, D.P. Driscoll, M. Layne. American Industrial Hygiene Association, Fairfax, VA 2000; 5: 379–454
   Google Scholar
• Carter N.L., Upfold G. Comparison of earphone and sound field methods for estimating noise attenuation of foam earplugs. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 1993; 54: 307–312
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Casali J.G., Berger E.H. Technology advancements in hearing protection circa 1995: Active noise reduction, frequency/amplitude-sensitivity, and uniform attenuation. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 1996; 57: 175–185
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Casali J.G., Epps B.W. Effects of user insertion/donning instructions on noise attenuation of aural insert hearing protectors. Human Factors 1986; 28: 195–210
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Casali J.G., Lam S.T. Effects of user instructions on earmuff/earcup sound attenuation. Sound and Vibration 1986; 20(5)22–28
   Google Scholar
• Edwards E.G., Hauser W.P., Moiseev N.A., Broderson A.B. Effectiveness of earplugs as worn in the workplace. Sound and Vibration 1978; 12(1)12–22
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elwood J.M. 2000 Clinical Appraisal of Epidemiological Studies and Clinical Trials. 2nd ed., New York, NY: Oxford University Press Inc. p. 448.
   Google Scholar
• Environmental Protection Agency. 1979. 40 CFR Part 211 subpart B. Noise Labeling Requirements for Hearing Protectors, 56139-56147. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
   Google Scholar
• Federal Register. 1983a. Occupational Noise Exposure; Hearing Conservation Amendment Final Rule, CFR 1910.95. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Department of Labor.
   Google Scholar
• Federal Register. 1983b. Guidelines for Noise Enforcement Appendix A, CPL 2-2.35A-29 CFR 1910.95(b)(1). Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Department of Labor.
   Google Scholar
• Field A., Hole G. How to Design and Report Experiments. SAGE Publications Inc, Thousand Oaks, CA 2003
   Google Scholar
• Frank T., Greer A.C., Magistro D.M. Hearing thresholds, threshold repeatability, and attenuation values for passive noise-reducing earphone enclosures. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 1997; 58: 772–778
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Franks J.R., Murphy W.J., Harris D.A., Johnson J.L., Shaw P.B. Alternative field methods for measuring hearing protector performance. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 2003; 64: 501–509
   Google Scholar
• Franks J.R., Murphy W.J., Johnson J.L., Harris D.A. Four earplugs in search of a rating system. Ear Hear 2000; 21: 218–226
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Franks J.R. & Stephenson M.R. 1994. The Development of a Hearing Conservation Attitude Survey: Final Report, NIOSH Contract 211-93-0006.
   Google Scholar
• ISO 1999. Acoustics- Determination of Occupational Noise Exposure and Estimation of Noise-induced Hearing Impairment, 2nd ed. Geneva: ISO 1999 1990(E).
   Google Scholar
• Joseph A.R. Attenuation of Passive Hearing Protection Devices as a Function of Group versus Individual Training. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 2004
   Google Scholar
• Lam S.T. Influence of insertion/donning instruction on frequency-specific sound attenuation achieved with ear canal caps and ear muffs with implications for industrial noise application. Unpublished Masters Thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 1985
   Google Scholar
• Lempert B.L., Edwards R.G. Field investigations of noise reduction afforded by insert-type hearing protectors. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 1983; 44: 894–902
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Linacre J.M. 2002. WINSTEPS (Version 3.37). Rasch measurement computer program. Chicago: Winsteps.com.
   Google Scholar
• Lusk S.L., Kerr M.J., Kauffman S.A. Use of hearing protection and perceptions of noise exposure and hearing loss among construction workers. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 1998; 59: 466–470
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lusk S.L., Ronis D.L., Baer L.M. Gender differences in blue collar workers' use of hearing protection. Women's Health 1997a; 25(4)69–89
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lusk S.L., Ronis D.L., Hogan M.M. Test of the health promotion model as a causal model of construction workers' use of hearing protection. Res Nurs Health 1997b; 20: 183–194
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martin A.M. How realistic are standard subjective test methods for evaluating hearing protector attenuation?. Personal Hearing Protection in Industry, P.W. Alberti. Raven Press, New York 1982; 273–298
   Google Scholar
• Melamed S., Rabinowitz S., Feiner M., Weisberg E., Ribak J. Usefulness of the protection motivation theory in explaining hearing protection device use among male industrial workers. Health Psychol 1996; 15: 209–215
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Merry C.J., Sizemore C.W., Franks J.R. The effect of fitting procedure on hearing protector attenuation. Ear Hear 1992; 13: 11–18
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murphy W.J., Franks J.R., Berger E.H., Behar A., Casali J.G., et al. Development of a new standard laboratory protocol for estimating the field attenuation of hearing protection devices: Sample size necessary to provide acceptable reproducibility. J Acoust Soc Am 2004; 115: 311–323
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• NIOSH 1976. A Real-ear Field Method for the Measurement of the Noise Attenuation of Insert-type Hearing Protectors. Public Health Service, Health Education and Welfare, Center for Disease Control, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 76–181.
   Google Scholar
• NIOSH 1998. Criteria for a Recommended Standard (Occupational Noise Exposure- Revised Criteria 1998). Cincinnati, OH: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 98–126).
   Google Scholar
• Paakkonen R., Tikkanen J. Attenuation of low-frequency noise by hearing protectors. Ann Occ Hyg 1991; 35: 189–199
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Padilla M. Earplug performance in industrial field conditions. Sound and Vibration 1976; 10(5)33–36
   Google Scholar
• Park M.Y., Casali J.G. A controlled investigation of in-field attenuation performance of selected insert, earmuff, and canal cap hearing protectors. Human Factors 1991; 33: 693–714
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Passchier-Vermeer W., van den Berg R. & Crijns H. 1994. L. Leiden: TNO-Netherlands Institute for Preventive Health ( NIPG 94.028).
   Google Scholar
• Rabinowitz S., Melamed S., Feiner M., Weisberg E., Ribak J. Hostility and hearing protection behavior: The mediating role of personal beliefs and low frustration tolerance. J Occup Health Psychol 1996; 1: 375–381
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Royster L.H., Royster J.D., Berger E.H. Guidelines for developing an effective hearing conservation program. Sound and Vibration 1982; 16(5)22–25
   Google Scholar
• Royster J.D. In search of a meaningful measure of hearing protector effectiveness. National Hearing Conservation Association Spectrum 1995; 12(2)5–13
   Google Scholar
• Royster J.D., Berger E.H., Merry C.J., Nixon C.W., Franks J.R., et al. Development of a new standard laboratory protocol for estimating the field attenuation of hearing protection devices. Part I. Research of Working Group 11, Accredited Standards Committee S12. Noise. J Acoust Soc Am 1996; 99: 1506–1526
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Royster J.D., Royster L.H. Hearing conservation programs: guidelines for success: the check-off list summary guide. Lewis Publishers Inc, Boca Raton, FL 1990
   Google Scholar
• Suter A.H. OSHA's hearing conservation amendment and the audiologist. Asha 1984; 26(6)39–43
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sutton G.J., Robinson D.W. An appraisal of methods for estimating effectiveness of hearing protectors. Journal of Sound and Vibration 1981; 77(1)79–91
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Svensson E.B., Morata T.C., Nylen P, Krieg E.F., Johnson A.C. Beliefs and attitudes among Swedish workers regarding the risk of hearing loss. Int J Audiol 2004; 43(10)585–593
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weichbold V., Zorowka P. Effects of a hearing protection campaign on the discotheque attendance habits of high-school students. Int J Audiol 2003; 42(8)489–493
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar