Adult Aural Rehabilitation: What Is It and Does It Work?

Trends in Amplification

Volumn 11, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 63-71

  Boothroyd, Arthur ^a  

^a SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

audiologic rehabilitation; aural rehabilitation; hearing loss

Indexed keywords

AUDITORY REHABILITATION; AURAL REHABILITATION; COCHLEA PROSTHESIS; CONFERENCE PAPER; COUNSELING; EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE; FREQUENCY MODULATION; HEARING; HEARING AID; HEARING LOSS; HUMAN; LANGUAGE ABILITY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PERCEPTIVE DISCRIMINATION; PHYSICAL ACTIVITY; QUALITY OF LIFE; SELF EVALUATION; SENSORY STIMULATION; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

ACTIVITIES OF DAILY LIVING; ADULT; AUDITORY PERCEPTION; COCHLEAR IMPLANTS; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; COUNSELING; HEALTH CARE COSTS; HEARING AIDS; HEARING LOSS; HUMANS; OUTCOME AND PROCESS ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PATIENT EDUCATION; QUALITY OF LIFE; REHABILITATION OF HEARING IMPAIRED; SPEECH PERCEPTION; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 34347381982     PISSN: 10847138     EISSN: 19405588     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1084713807301073     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. WHO. International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF). Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2001.
2. WHO. International Classification of Impairments, Disabilities, and Handicaps. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 1980.
3. Kros CJ. How to build an inner hair cell: challenges for regeneration. Hear Res. In press.
4. White PM Doetzlhofer A Lee YS Groves AK Segil N. Mammalian cochlear supporting cells can divide and trans-differentiate into hair cells. Nature. 2006;441: 984–987.
5. Boothroyd A. Hearing aid accessories for adults: the remote FM microphone. Ear Hearing. 2004;25: 22–23.
6. Noe CM McArdle R Chisholm TH et al., FM Technology use in adults with significant hearing loss. Part I: candidacy. In: Fabry D Deconde Johnson CD (eds). ACCESS: Achieving Clear Communication Employing Sound Solutions. Chicago, Ill: Phonak AG; 2004.
7. Chisholm TH Noe CM McArdle R et al., FM technology use in adults with significant hearing loss. Part II: outcomes. In: Fabry DA Deconde Johnson CD (eds). ACCESS: Achieving Clear Communication Employing Sound Solutions. Chicago, Ill: Phonak AG; 2004.
8. American Speech Language Hearing Assoc. Knowledge and skills required for the practice of audiologic/aural rehabilitation. ASHA Desk Reference. Vol 4. Rockville, Md: ASHA; 2001.
9. Noble W. What is a psychosocial approach to hearing loss? Scand Audiol. 1996;25(suppl 43): 6–11.
10. Stephens D. Hearing rehabilitation in a psychosocial framework. Scand Audiol. 1996;25(suppl 43): 57–66.
11. Clark GJ. The audiology counseling growth checklist for student supervision. Semin Hear. 2006;27: 116–126.
12. Clarkson MG English KM. Counseling in Audiologic Practice. Boston, Mass: Pearson Education Inc; 2004.
13. Luterman DM. Counseling Persons With Communication Disorders and Their Families. Austin, Tex: Proe-Ed; 1996.
14. Gatehouse S Naylor G Elberling C. Benefits from hearing aids in relation to the interaction between the user and the environment. Int J Audiol. 2003;42: S77–S85.
15. Maki-Torkko EM Brorsson B Davis A et al., Hearing impairment among adults—extent of the problem and scientific evidence on the outcome of hearing aid rehabilitation. Scand J Audiol Suppl. 2001: 8–15.
16. Mueller HG. Fitting hearing aids to adults using prescriptive methods: an evidence-based review of effectiveness. J Am Acad Audiol. 2005;16: 448–460.
17. Mueller GH Bentler RA. Fitting hearing aids using clinical measures of loudness discomfort levels: an evidence-based review of effectiveness. J Am Acad Audiol. 2005;16: 461–472.
18. Larson VD Williams DW Henderson WG et al., Efficacy of 3 commonly used hearing aid circuits: acrossover trial. JAMA. 2000;284: 1806–1813.
19. Mulrow CD Tuley MR Aguilar C. Sustained benefits of hearing aids. J Speech Hear Res. 1992;35: 1402–1405.
20. Nabelek AK Tampas JW Burchfield SB. Comparison of speech perception in background noise with acceptance of background noise in aided and unaided conditions. J Speech Hear Res. 2004;47: 1001–1011.
21. Bentler RA Niebuhr JP Getta CV Anderson CV. Longitudinal study of hearing aid effectiveness. II: subjective measures. J Speech Hear Res. 1993;36: 820–831.
22. Erdman SA Demorest ME. Adjustment to hearing impairment II: audiologic and demographic correlates. J Speech Hear Res. 1998;42: 797–803.
23. Humes LE Halling D Coughlin M. Reliability and stability of various hearing-aid outcome measures in a group of elderly hearing aid wearers. J Speech Hear Res. 1996;39: 923–935.
24. Boothroyd A. Hearing aid accessories for adults: the remote FM microphone. Ear Hear. 2005;25: 22–33.
25. Bentler RA. Effectiveness of directional microphones and noise reduction schemes in hearing aids: a systematic review of the evidence. J Am Acad Audiol. 2005;16: 473–484.
26. Surr RK Walden BE Cord MT Olsen L. Influence of environmental factors on hearing aid microphone preference. J Am Acad Audiol. 2002;13: 208–322.
27. Walden BE Surr R Cord M Edwards B Olson L. Comparison of Benefits Provided by Different Hearing Aid Technologies. J Am Acad Audiol. 2000;11: 540–560.
28. Walden BE Surr RK Cord MT. Real world performance of directional microphone hearing aids. Hearing J. 2003;56: 40–47.
29. Walden BE Surr RK Cord MT Dyrlan O. Predicting hearing aid microphone preference in everyday listening. J Am Acad Audiol. 2004;15: 363–394.
30. Chisolm TH Abrams HB McArdle R. Short- and long-term outcomes of audiological rehabilitation. Ear Hear. 2004;25: 464–477.
31. Abrams H Hnath-Chisolm T Guerreiro S Ritterman S. The effects of intervention strategy on self-perception of hearing handicap. Ear Hear. 1992;13: 371–377.
32. Brooks D. Counseling and its effect on hearing aid use. Scand Audiol. 1979;8: 101–107.
33. Northern J Beyer DM. Reducing hearing aid returns through patient education. Audiol Today. 1999;11: 10–11.
34. Chisholm TH Noe CM McArdle R et al., FM technology use in adults with significant hearing loss. Part II: outcomes. In: Fabry DA Deconde Johnson CD (eds). ACCESS: Achieving Clear Communication Employing Sound Solutions. Chicago: Phonak AG; 2003.
35. Sweetow RW Henderson Sabe J. The need for and development of an adaptive listening and communication enhancement (LACE) program. J Am Acad Audiol. 2006;17: 538–58.
36. Rubinstein A Boothroyd A. The effect of two approaches to auditory training on speech recognition by hearing-impaired adults. J Speech Hear Res. 1987;30: 153–160.
37. Sweetow RW Palmer CV. Efficacy of individual auditory training in adults: a systematic review of the evidence. J Am Acad Audiol. 2005;16: 494–504.
38. Hawkins D. Effectiveness of counseling-based adult group aural rehabilitation programs: a systematic review of the literature. J Am Acad Audiol. 2005;16: 485–493.
39. Trybus R Stika CJ Goulder TJ. Final Project Report: Rehabilitation Research and Training Center on Mental Health Needs of Persons Who Are Late Deafened or Hard of Hearing. Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of Education, NIDRR; 1997.
40. Tye-Murray N. Foundations of Aural Rehabilitation. San Diego, Calif: Singular Publishing Group; 1998.
41. Lesner SA Krikos PB. Audiologic rehabilitation: a holistic approach. In: Krikos PB Lesner SA (eds). Hearing Care for the Older Adult. Boston, Mass: Butterworth-Heinemann; 1995: 21–58.
42. Sackett DL Rosenberg WM Gray JA Haynes RB Richardson WS. Evidence-based medicine: what it is and what it isn't. Brit Med J. 1996;312: 71–72.
43. American Academy of Audiology Task Force. Guidelines for the Audiologic Management of Adult Hearing Impairment. Available from: www.audiology.org. Accessed Feb 27, 2007
44. Cox R. Evidence-based practice in the provision of amplification. J Am Acad Audiol. 2005;16: 419–438.