Certain risk factors place a child at significantly greater risk of congenital hearing impairment or developing permanent hearing loss by age 3. Follow-up diagnostic testing should remain a priority for children with certain risk factors for hearing loss.

Background Self-report questionnaires are a frequently used method of evaluating hearing aid outcomes. Studies have shown that personality can account for 5–20% of the variance in response to self-report measures. As a result, these influences can impact results and limit their generalizability when the purpose of the study is to examine the technological merit of hearing aids. To reduce personality influences on self-report outcome data, the Device-Oriented Subjective Outcome (DOSO) was developed. The DOSO is meant to demonstrate outcomes of the amplification device relatively independent of the individual’s personality. Still, it is unknown if the DOSO achieves its original goal. Purpose The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between personality and the DOSO. The relationship between personality and several widely used hearing-related questionnaires was also examined. Research Design This is a nonexperimental study using a correlational design. Study Sample A total of 119 adult hearing aid wearers participated in the study. Data Collection and Analysis The NEO Five-Factor Inventory was used to measure five personality traits (Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness). The initial (unaided) hearing disablement, residual (aided) hearing disablement, and hearing aid benefit and satisfaction was measured using the DOSO, Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly/Adult, Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit, and Satisfaction with Amplification in Daily Life. The relationship between personality and each questionnaire was examined using a correlation analysis. Results All of the DOSO subscales were found to be significantly correlated to personality, regardless of whether age and better-ear hearing thresholds were controlled. Individuals who reported poorer hearing aid outcomes tended to have higher Neuroticism scores, while those who scored higher in Extraversion, Openness, and Agreeableness were more likely to report better outcomes. Across DOSO subscales, the maximum variance explained by personality traits ranged from 6% to 11%. Consistent with the literature, ~3–18% of the variance of other hearing-related questionnaires was attributable to personality. Conclusions The degree to which personality affects the DOSO is similar to other hearing-related questionnaires. Although the variance accounted for by personality is not large, researchers and clinicians should not assume that the results of the DOSO are independent of personality.

Objectives To provide an introduction to the role of audiological evaluations with special reference to patients with skull base disease. Design Review article with case-based overview of the current state of the practice of diagnostic audiology through highlighting the multifaceted clinical toolbox and the value of mechanism-based audiological evaluations that contribute to otologic differential diagnosis. Setting Current state of the practice of diagnostic audiology. Main Outcome Measures Understanding of audiological evaluation results in clinical practice and value of contributions to interdisciplinary teams to identify and quantify dysfunction along the auditory pathway and its subsequent effects. Results Accurate auditory information is best captured with a test battery that consists of various assessment crosschecks and mechanism-driven assessments. Conclusion Audiologists utilize a comprehensive clinical toolbox to gather information for assessment, diagnosis, and management of numerous pathologies. This information, in conjunction with thorough medical review, provides mechanism-specific contributions to the otologic and lateral skull base differential diagnosis.

Purpose A summary of literature surrounding cortical hearing impairment (cortical deafness, auditory agnosia, and pure word deafness) was studied to identify causes and prognoses of the disorders, in addition to assessment methods and rehabilitation strategies for the multidisciplinary care team setting. Method A comprehensive review of the literature surrounding cortical hearing impairment with a focus on clinical evaluation and management of patients with these conditions was performed. Results An extensive literature search resulted in 109 relevant articles discussing cases of cortical hearing impairment. Conclusions Cortical deafness continues to be the rarest of the cortical hearing impairment spectrum of disorders, with reports of auditory agnosia and pure word deafness appearing more commonly. In order to assess and manage patients with these conditions, audiologists must utilize a comprehensive set of clinical tools. This information must be combined with results of thorough multidisciplinary evaluations in order to better characterize diagnoses and outcomes for these patients. Continued reporting of case studies and summaries of the literature is encouraged, with a specific call for more consistent assessment and reporting formats.