Andrew James Myles1. 1. a Department of Linguistics , Macquarie University , Sydney , Australia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Limited empirical investigation exists validating the use of Arthur Boothroyd (AB) word recognition materials within the Australian clinical context. The current research was undertaken to examine the evidence base and clinical implementation/interpretation of AB words in Australia. DESIGN: An on-line 22-question survey was e-mailed to members of the peak audiology professional body in Australia. STUDY SAMPLE: Three hundred and twelve responses were recorded between April and June 2015 from audiologists of a range of ages, working in various clinical settings. RESULTS: The survey results suggested audiologists use AB words on a wide range of clients from children <5 to adults ≥80 years, for diverse purposes including diagnosis of retrocochlear pathology, candidacy and validation of rehabilitative options, and client counselling. A majority of respondents reported typically administering one or two word lists per ear, and over 99% of audiologists utilised phonemic scoring. There was no consensus regarding what constitutes a significant difference between any two given scores. CONCLUSIONS: Wide variation exists in the administration and interpretation of AB words in Australia. There appears to be a mismatch between clinical utilisation of AB words and existing evidence-based empirical data. Further research is required to improve evidence-based audiologist training, and thereby current clinical use of AB words.
OBJECTIVE: Limited empirical investigation exists validating the use of Arthur Boothroyd (AB) word recognition materials within the Australian clinical context. The current research was undertaken to examine the evidence base and clinical implementation/interpretation of AB words in Australia. DESIGN: An on-line 22-question survey was e-mailed to members of the peak audiology professional body in Australia. STUDY SAMPLE: Three hundred and twelve responses were recorded between April and June 2015 from audiologists of a range of ages, working in various clinical settings. RESULTS: The survey results suggested audiologists use AB words on a wide range of clients from children <5 to adults ≥80 years, for diverse purposes including diagnosis of retrocochlear pathology, candidacy and validation of rehabilitative options, and client counselling. A majority of respondents reported typically administering one or two word lists per ear, and over 99% of audiologists utilised phonemic scoring. There was no consensus regarding what constitutes a significant difference between any two given scores. CONCLUSIONS: Wide variation exists in the administration and interpretation of AB words in Australia. There appears to be a mismatch between clinical utilisation of AB words and existing evidence-based empirical data. Further research is required to improve evidence-based audiologist training, and thereby current clinical use of AB words.
Entities:
Keywords:
Arthur Boothroyd; evidence-based practice; speech audiometry; word recognition