Search

Objective: In occupational hearing conservation programmes, age adjustments may be used to subtract expected age effects. Adjustments used in the U.S. came from a small dataset and overlooked important demographic factors, ages, and stimulus frequencies. The present study derived a set of population-based age adjustment tables and validated them using a database of exposed workers. Design: Cross-sectional population-based study and retrospective longitudinal cohort study for validation. Study sample: Data from the U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (unweighted n  = 9937) were used to produce these tables. Male firefighters and emergency medical service workers (76,195 audiograms) were used for validation. Results: Cross-sectional trends implied less change with age than assumed in current U.S. regulations. Different trends were observed among people identifying with non-Hispanic Black race/ethnicity. Four age adjustment tables (age range: 18-85) were developed (women or men; non-Hispanic Black or other race/ethnicity). Validation outcomes showed that the population-based tables matched median longitudinal changes in hearing sensitivity well. Conclusions: These population-based tables provide a suitable replacement for those implemented in current U.S. regulations. These tables address a broader range of worker ages, account for differences in hearing sensitivity across race/ethnicity categories, and have been validated for men using longitudinal data.

Purpose This study assessed the confidence of speech-language pathologists (SLPs) and school psychologists (SPs) in working with children with hearing loss (HL) and other co-occurring disabilities. Professionals' opinions on barriers to and importance of interdisciplinary collaboration were also of interest. Method A 59-item online survey was distributed to SLPs and SPs in the United States through state professional organizations and social media posts. A total of 320 respondents completed the survey and met criteria. Perceptions of confidence across 5 different skill set types were assessed, along with experiences and attitudes concerning professional training and interdisciplinary collaboration. Results A 2-way analysis of variance revealed significant main effects of profession and skill set type on professionals' confidence in assessing a student with HL and other co-occurring disabilities, as well as their confidence in determining the etiology of a student's difficulties. Results from a multiple linear regression revealed the number of students worked with who have HL and the amount of training in graduate school as significant predictors of confidence in both aforementioned skill set types. Results indicate that respondents value interdisciplinary collaboration but that time and access to other professionals are barriers to collaboration. Conclusions Results of the current study indicate that many school-based SLPs and SPs have insufficient training or experience in working with students who have HL and other co-occurring disabilities. Limited training and experience with this unique population among practitioners have the potential to affect the quality of services provided to these students and thus need to be addressed within the school system and the fields of school psychology and speech-language pathology. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.7772867.

Hearing loss is one of the most common major birth defects, yet the average age for identifying significant hearing loss in children in the United States is 30 months. Hearing loss directly affects a child's ability to develop normal language skills, impairs his or her ability to communicate with others in the environment, and has been shown to correlate with poor academic performance. However, if hearing loss is detected early and interventions are begun before 6 months of age, children with hearing loss develop language, cognitive, and speech skills comparable to their non-hearing-impaired peers. Only 38 states mandate universal newborn hearing screening before discharge from the hospital. This article describes an institutional universal hearing screening program developed by nursing, which collaborated with physicians, audiologists, and otolaryngologists. Careful planning, including a thorough literature review, networking with area hospitals, and dialoging with experts in the field led to a successful program.The outcomes from this program compare favorably to nationally published data.

Objective: To compare 2 screening methods for unrecognized handicapping hearing loss in the elderly., Study Design: Cross-sectional study., Population: Five hundred forty-six older individuals who underwent audiometry at biennial examination 22 of the Framingham Heart Study and who took the Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly-Screening (HHIE-S) questionnaire., Outcomes Measured: The 2 screening methods were the 10-item HHIE-S and 1 global question: "Do you have a hearing problem now?" The gold standard was an audiogram showing a pure tone threshold of 40 dB HL or higher at 1 and 2 kHz in one ear or at 1 or 2 kHz in both ears. Both screening methods were compared with the gold standard in terms of sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values. The 10-item screening version of the HHIE-S (cutoff score between 8 and 10) had a sensitivity of 35% and a specificity of 94% for detecting the criterion hearing loss. The global subjective measure had greater sensitivity (71%) but lower specificity (71%) than the HHIE-S. Combining the global question and the HHIE-S items failed to improve the specificity of the global question or the sensitivity of the HHIE-S., Conclusions: The global measure of hearing loss was more effective than the detailed questionnaire in identifying older individuals with unrecognized handicapping hearing loss. Primary care physicians are encouraged to ask their patients whether they have a hearing problem and refer patients who do for formal hearing testing.

As a result of legislation supporting the position statement of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) Joint Committee on Hearing, newborn hearing screening programs have become a protocol of care in hospital nurseries throughout the United States. The current goals are to screen all infants by 1 month of age, confirm hearing loss with audiologic examination by 3 months of age, and treat with comprehensive early intervention services before 6 months of age. This article will review the development of the Joint Committee on Infant Hearing position statements, examine legislation and health policy initiatives for universal newborn hearing screening, and determine nursing's role in meeting the goals.

Because self-assessment measures are helpful in identifying handicap/communication difficulties, they have an important place in hearing screening protocols for adult/elderly persons. When impairment is used as the criterion, questionnaire results can be used to calculate sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, and efficiency for a variety of fences. Findings are summarized for 2825 persons on three different questionnaires that reveal adequate, reasonably similar, and predictable relationships between impairment and self-assessment findings. However, evidence on "deny-ers" (persons with impairment who deny their handicap) and "complainers" (persons who complain about handicap but have no impairment) are also presented. These latter findings show a strong rationale for using self-assessment measures in their own right, and not simply as an alternate, less effective method for measuring pure-tone impairment.