中文摘要：

目的探讨噪声性听力损失的易感、耐受人群筛选方法，为今后研究提供帮助。方法选择噪声暴露强度在75—120dB范围内的企业噪声作业工人为研究对象。进行现场职业卫生学调查、收集工人基本情况和工人听阈水平检测的资料，采用国内外筛选噪声性易感和耐受人群的3种方法，判断不同方法在筛选易感人群和耐受人群的情况。通过配对X2检验做两两比较，并且对样本的噪声暴露情况、一般情况的均衡性以及噪声性听阈位移情况为依据，判断哪种方法更好。结果各个方法筛选出来的易感人群和耐受人群的噪声暴露情况，基本情况，左右耳听阈水平都有较好的均衡性，配对X2检验发现两两之间差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。但从专业的角度比较，各数值间存在较多错配情况，高频听阈情况有统计学差异，方法B和方法C结果较为相近且优于方法A。结论现今我国工人年轻化，自我保护意识加强，个体防护措施做的较之前有很大的提高，采用方法B更适合作为我国现阶段噪声性听力损失人群的特征。

英文摘要：

Objective To investigate the screening methods for identifying the populations susceptible and resistant to noise-induced hearing loss （NIHL） and to provide a reference for future research. Methods Workers who were exposed to 75-120 dB noise in enterprises were included in the study. Field investigation of occupational health was conducted; workers＇ basic information and data on hearing threshold levels were collected. Paired chi-square test was used to compare each two of three screening methods, which were used at home and abroad to identify noise-susceptible and noise-sensitive populations, in terms of noise exposure level, general information, and noise-induced hearing threshold shift. Results There were no significant differences in the noise exposure level, basic information, and left and right ears＇ hearing threshold levels of noise- susceptible and noise-sensitive populations between each two of the three screening methods （/〉〉0.05）, according to the paired chi-square test. However, high-frequency hearing threshold had statistically significant difference among the three methods. As a whole, methods B and C were superior to method A. Conclusion The workers in China are younger than before, with more awareness of self-protection, and individual protection is enhanced in them. Currently. method B is more suitable for screeninz out the population susceotible to NIHL in China.