Spelling suggestions: "subject:"audiitory perception:testing."" "subject:"audiitory perceptionanimating.""
1 |
The relationship between self-perceived benefit as measured by the APHAB, COSI and CPHI and the presence of ADP in an elderly population. [electronic resource] / by Michelle L. Bleiweiss.Bleiweiss, Michelle L. January 2002 (has links)
Professional research project (Au.D.)--University of South Florida, 2002. / Title from PDF of title page. / Document formatted into pages; contains 34 pages. / Includes bibliographical references. / Text (Electronic thesis) in PDF format. / ABSTRACT: The self-perceived hearing aid benefit of 38 participants was examined. Of the 38 subjects, 8 were found to have an auditory processing disorder as measured by the Dichotic Sentence Identification (DSI). When compared to the non-APD subjects, there were essentially no significant differences on the APHAB or COSI outcome measures. However, two of the 5 scales of the CHPI did show significant differences. In conclusion, these results do not support the notion of APD having a negative effect on hearing aid benefit. No finding in this study was robust and although there were several trends supporting that APD may impede an individual from receiving their full potential of benefit, this finding is not necessarily so. / System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader. / Mode of access: World Wide Web.
|
2 |
Long term stability of self reported hearing aid benefit in adults [electronic resource]/ by Gregory J. Spirakis.Spirakis, Gregory J. January 2002 (has links)
Professional research project (Au.D.)--University of South Florida, 2002. / Title from PDF of title page. / Document formatted into pages; contains 35 pages. / Includes bibliographical references. / Text (Electronic thesis) in PDF format. / ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to investigate the stability of hearing aid benefit, as measured by the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB; Cox & Alexander, 1995), between three months post hearing aid fitting and at next the annual audiological re-evaluation. The annual re-evaluation was at least, and as close to nine months as possible, after the previous audiological. The maximum time between the two evaluations was 18 months. Thirty-six hearing aid patients participated in this study. The participants were both male andfemale, and were fitted monaurally or binaurally with hearing aid(s). All participants had sensorineural hearing loss with no ongoing or permanent conductive or retrocochlear pathology. The APHAB scale was administered at the three month hearing aid check (HAC) and again at the annual audiometric re-evaluation. / Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), with length of time between the three month hearing aid check (HAC) and the next audiological re-evaluation as a covariate, was used to examine the main effects of time of administration and subscale [e.g., ease of communication (EC), reverberant conditions (RV), background noise (BN), and aversiveness of sounds (AV) and their interactions. Results revealed a significant reduction in the mean benefit scores between the 3-month HAC and annual re-evaluation APHAB administration. It is hypothesized that the causal factor of the decrease in benefit in the EC, RV, & BN are multifactorial. / These reductions in benefits may be do to the Hawthorne effect, unrealistic hearing aid benefit expectations by the participants, or a heightened expectation of hearing aid benefit due to the financial expense. It should also be noted, however, that using the 90% confidence interval for "true" clinical benefit, 21 of the participants maintained stable benefit over the course of the study. Finally, although not statistically significant, the fourth APHAB scale, aversiveness of sounds (AV), improved over time. / System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader. / Mode of access: World Wide Web.
|
Page generated in 0.1308 seconds