No description available.

Nondisabled people frequently feel uncomfortable with or avoid physically disabled people. One purpose of the study was to assess people's responses to a confederate who used a hearing aid. A second purpose was to assess responses to the confederate when he wore a more a more effective and much more conspicuous hearing device. The third purpose was to see if volunteering an explanation of the hearing device would result in a less negative response than that found without an explanation. The participants were 80 male undergraduates. They interacted with the confederate, a male undergraduate whose hearing was normal, in an interview situation. There were no differences among the hearing impaired conditions, or between the hearing impaired conditions and a nondisabled control condition, on any of these variables: distance from the confederate, delay before initiating conversation when left alone with the confederate, length of the interview, and impression ratings of the confederate. These results suggest that people do not avoid or feel uncomfortable with a person who uses a hearing aid or a larger hearing device. Because participants did not respond negatively to the large hearing device when no explanation was offered, the possible benefits of voluntarily explaining the device could not be assessed.

The purpose of this thesis was to conduct an in-service training program for the staff members of a nursing care facility for the elderly and evaluate the benefits of the program in terms of knowledge gained in the areas of presbycusis and hearing aids following the presentation dealing with these topics. Twenty-five staff members consisting of nurses' aides and licensed personnel (RN and LPN) at Westminster Village Health Center in Muncie, Indiana, a nursing and retirement facility for the aged, were given a presentation dealing with hearing problems and hearing aids for the elderly. Questionnaires of subjective ratings of competency with hearing aids and a test of knowledge of hearing problems and hearing aids were administered to the staff members before and after the presentation in order to evaluate any change in these factors following the presentation.Post versus pre-test results for both the questionnaire and the test showed significant improvement at the .0005 level. Suggestions for future in-service programs were also included.

Seven monaural hearing aid users and four binaural hearing aid users (10 to 50 years old) were administered a hearing evaluation with earphones. Measures recorded were pure tone average (PTA), speech reception threshold (SRT), and speech discrimination scores. These results were compared with the results of an evaluation conducted one or more years previously. A t test was applied to the mean score differences from initial test to retest of the aided ears versus the unaided ears to determine the stability of speech discrimination in the unaided ear of persons with a bilateral loss of hearing sensitivity.PTA and SRT decreased minimally from initial test to retest indicating good threshold stability. Speech discrimination mean scores decreased, with a larger decrease observed for the unaided ears than the aided ears of monaural and binaural subjects. However, the larger decrease was not statistically significant. Therefore the data indicated that an ear which is not stimulated by amplification, with a hearing loss of sensitivity of 50dB HL to 80dB HL, does not have a significant decrease of speech discrimination as compared to an aided ear with a similar loss of hearing sensitivity.

Thesis (B.Sc.)--University of Hong Kong, 2003. / "A dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Bachelor of Science (Speech and Hearing Sciences), The University of Hong Kong, April 30, 2003." Includes bibliographical references (p. 28-29) Also available in print.

Thesis--University of Florida. / Description based on print version record. Typescript. Vita. Bibliography: leaves 121-125.

Thesis (M.S.)--University of Wisconsin--Madison, 1983. / Typescript. eContent provider-neutral record in process. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references (leaf 27).

This study examined the frequency response characteristics of three behind-the-ear hearing aids alone and in combination with three FM auditory trainers. The hearing aids and FM auditory trainers were coupled using two different methods: direct audio input and personal mini-loop. Also, two different gain control settings were used. Frequency responses were evaluated using a template method specified in ANSI S3.22 1982 standards. A larger percentage of the personal mini-loop combinations failed to meet this ANSI standard as compared to the direct audio input combinations (72.3% vs. 50%). The frequency response curves for various combinations of hearing aids and FM auditory trainers were also separated into high and low frequency bands. Significant changes in output were found for the low frequency region, and these changes were dependent upon the coupling method. Specifically, the personal mini-loop tended to produce a significant reduction in output in the low frequency band as compared to that of the hearing aid alone. The use of direct audio input resulted in a significant increase in output in the low frequency band as compared to that of the hearing aid alone. This latter method produced the best overall agreement with the hearing aid frequency response, especially when the FM auditory trainer was set at full on gain and the hearing aid at a low gain setting.

No description available.

Hearing loss negatively affects the lives of millions of Americans (Lin, Niparko, & Ferrucci, 2011). Amplification can enhance audibility and in turn improve quality of life (Mulrow et al., 1990). Yet it is estimated that only 20% of those who would benefit from amplification in the United States actually utilize it (Chien & Lin, 2012). Discomfort and insufficient value have been cited as reasons for low uptake as well as low motivation, negative attitudes towards hearing aids, and lack self-perceived handicap (McCormack & Fortnum, 2013; Vestergaard-Knudsen et al., 2010). Studies have also attributed the out-of-pocket cost for hearing aids as a substantial barrier (Bainbridge & Ramachandran, 2014; Kochkin, 2000). Cost as a barrier to hearing aid access may be an issue of particular importance in regions with high poverty, as low-income adults are less likely to report hearing aid use (Bainbridge & Ramachandran, 2014). Hearing aids can typically cost about $2,000 each, possibly making them out of reach for individuals living at or below the poverty line. Arizona has one of the highest poverty rates in the United States (Bishaw & Fontenot, 2014). Using US Census data and epidemiologic studies, we estimate that there are approximately 1,145,166 adults over the age of 19 living with significant bilateral or unilateral hearing loss in Arizona. An estimated 204,984 of these individuals are living at or below the federal poverty line (Lin, Naparko, & Ferrucci, 2011; Bishaw & Fontenot, 2014, Muller et al., 2015, US Census). These numbers are particularly alarming, as there are limited resources to support adults with hearing loss in Arizona. The aim of this study was to gather provider perspectives on the accessibility and affordability of hearing healthcare in Arizona. The long-term goal is to develop a state-level initiative to increase hearing aid use among low-income adults. Based on previous research from the Hearing Aid Coalition, we hypothesized that Arizona providers would prefer a state-level plan that mirrors service coverage and reimbursement mechanisms of private insurance (Hearing Aid Coalition, 2004) Audiologists and hearing instrument specialists were recruited via email to participate in focus groups and surveys. Three focus groups were held across the state in Phoenix, Flagstaff and Tucson (n = 26). The survey methodology included open and closed questions and was administered in paper-based and online versions (n = 77). Data were transcribed, coded, and analyzed using descriptive and basic regression analyses. There was wide-ranging participation from providers across the state representing urban and rural practice locations (All 15 counties represented). Data revealed most providers would prefer to see changes in the current state of hearing access for low-income adults. Providers considered a number of factors to be important when developing and implementing changes to existing service delivery. These factors included a centralized entity to distribute referrals across practices and sufficient reimbursement for service providers. Common themes included the need for a balance between quality of care and expense as well as creating a fee-for-service component to invest the patient in the process. Increased philanthropic practice image and fair compensation were cited as the greatest motivations for provider participation. Survey results also indicated that most providers are already doing pro-bono work. This study highlights that providers are willing to participate in state-level initiatives to improve hearing aid access. Ultimately, these results will inform policy makers of provider preferences for mechanisms of service-delivery and reimbursement. This research is a collaborative project funded by the Arizona Commission for the Deaf and the Hard of Hearing.