Serving Multilingual Clients With Hearing Loss

Ramkissoon, Ishara; Khan, Farhana

doi:10.1044/leader.ftr1.08032003.1

Cited by 3 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition, in 2019, only 8% of audiologists reported they were bilingual (23). When clinicians do not speak the same language as their patients, they have more difficulty accurately scoring speech recognition tests (13,14). However, we found that, after WRS was performed, there was no disparity in CIE referral based on primary language spoken.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Unfortunately, it is difficult to create word lists for specific non-English languages because they do not always have cross-linguistic applicability (12). When clinicians do not speak the same language as their patients, they may have more difficulty scoring speech recognition tests even when languagespecific validated word lists are available (13,14). CI candidacy criteria are based on audiometric thresholds and open-set sentence testing (15)(16)(17).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Investigating Socioeconomic Barriers to Cochlear Implantation

Greiner,

Rubinstein,

Kohlberg

2023

Otol Neurotol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To explore socioeconomic disparities in cochlear implant evaluation (CIE) referrals and cochlear implantation. Study Design Retrospective chart review. Setting Tertiary referral academic center. Methods Adult patients (n = 271) with an audiogram performed between 2015 and 2019 with a pure-tone average of at least 60 dB and word recognition score of 60% or less in the better-hearing ear or no word recognition score performed were included to determine if socioeconomic factors influenced the rate of referral to CIE and cochlear implantation. Results There were 122 insured patients referred to CIE where 84 were considered cochlear implant (CI) candidates and 73 were implanted. In multivariate regression analysis, non–English-speaking patients were referred to CIE at lower rates (p < 0.01) than English-speaking patients. Patients who met the CI candidacy criteria with private insurance (p = 0.03) or Medicare with private insurance supplement (p = 0.03) had higher rates of cochlear implantation than those with Medicare or Medicaid. Of the uninsured patients (n = 22), 3 were referred to CIE and 2 were considered CI candidates. No uninsured patients received a CI. Conclusions Primary language spoken was associated with a disparity in rates of CIE referral. Insurance type did influence rate of cochlear implantation once patients completed CIE and were considered CI candidates. Additional research is needed to implement strategies for more inclusive treatment.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Investigating Socioeconomic Barriers to Cochlear Implantation

Greiner,

Rubinstein,

Kohlberg

2023

Otol Neurotol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The situation is not different in audiology. Even though audiologists know there is a need for tests that are sensitive to their clients' linguistic characteristics, many prefer vocal tests available in their own language because they are more comfortable using them (Ramkissoon & Khan, 2003). Since Francophones living in a linguistic minority context do not always have access to French-speaking audiologists, they are not always being evaluated with linguistically appropriate tests.…”

Section: Current State Of Assessment Practices In Speech-language Pat...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Accessibility and Active Offer

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Before turning to the specific content of the chapters in this volume, it would be beneficial to offer some reflections on the importance of access to health and social services in the official language of the user's choice, and the reasons that lie behind such active offer. These thoughts can be framed by international research work on the vulnerability of people with limited language and literacy skills, which introduced the concepts of health literacy and Limited English Proficiency (LEP)

show abstract

“…Therefore, appropriate audiometric materials are essential. Clinical observations have shown that nonnative listeners and patients with diverse linguistic backgrounds typically perform speech tests more poorly than native and/or monolingual hearing-impaired and normal-hearing listeners [28][29][30][31]. Consequently, each language should have its own speech materials [32].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development Of Speech Material For An Armenian Speech Recognition Threshold Test

Sargsyan

Rahne

2021

Russ Open Med J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction — For the Armenian language, no standardized audiometric speech perception test is available. The purpose of this research was to develop, digitally record and evaluate an Armenian multisyllabic speech audiometry test, which can be used to measure speech recognition thresholds in Armenian native speakers. Material and Methods — To create a homogeneous multisyllabic speech corpus, Armenian numerals from 10-100 with 2-4 syllables were selected as general sample and digitally recorded by a female native Armenian speaker. For equalizing the speech recognition threshold between the test items, the speech discrimination function for each numeral was subsequently evaluated by five normal hearing native Armenian listeners in an experimental study. Results — Based on the phonemic structure of the Armenian language, 20 phonemically homogeneous test lists were created. The phoneme distributions of each test list correlated significantly and positively with that of the general sample (all Pearson moment correlation coefficients >0.960; all ps <0.001). Comparison of the phoneme distributions of test lists to that of the Armenian language showed that the test lists represent the language corpus quite well. After adjusting for actual threshold levels, speech discrimination functions are comparable between all numerals used. Conclusion — The developed test lists are a phonetically homogenous representation of the Armenian language and serve as an appropriated base for future clinical measurements of speech recognition threshold in Armenian speaking listeners.

show abstract

Serving Multilingual Clients With Hearing Loss

Cited by 3 publications

References 0 publications

Investigating Socioeconomic Barriers to Cochlear Implantation

Investigating Socioeconomic Barriers to Cochlear Implantation

Accessibility and Active Offer

Development Of Speech Material For An Armenian Speech Recognition Threshold Test

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About