Abstract
AbstractObjective: The aim of this study was to establish the impact of peer review on estimated ABR thresholds. Study design: The reported ABR thresholds of two groups of 38 babies tested over a period of six months when a system of formal peer review was in place, and another period of six months when it was not in place, were retrospectively analysed by expert clinicians. Results: The modal differences between experts and tester estimated threshold with and without peer review were 5dB (-10 to +20) and 0dB (-10 to +35), respectively. Wilcoxon's signed-rank test for paired samples revealed a small but significant difference in estimated thresholds between experts and tester irrespective of whether tester was subjected to peer review on the day of the test or not. Conclusion: Peer review provides opportunities for peer support and continuing professional development. A system of formal peer review is strongly advocated.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
