China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
The Active Middle Ear Implant Vibrant Soundbridge: Outcomes on Safety, Efficacy, Effectiveness, and Subjective Benefit 1996–2017
Published in Stavros Hatzopoulos, Andrea Ciorba, Mark Krumm, Advances in Audiology and Hearing Science, 2020
Michael Urban, Francesca Scandurra, Anna Truntschnig, Severin Fürhapter, Geoffrey Ball
Word recognition (formerly called speech discrimination) is the ability to repeat correctly an open set of monosyllabic words at supra-threshold intensity. Word lists are phonetically balanced (PB), meaning that the speech sounds used occur with the same frequency as in the whole language. The score represents the percent of words correct for most word recognition tests. The purpose of speech recognition testing in quiet is to assess how well a person can understand speech in a quiet environment. The level necessary for a person with hearing loss to perform to a maximum is highly variable from patient to patient. In addition, several types of materials are used to assess speech recognition ability in quiet such as sentences, nonsense syllables, and the most commonly used stimuli, monosyllabic words. For the determination of the WRS of VSB patients suffering from SNHL, speech tests were conducted by several studies, however, there was a great variety in the type of tests used; including differences in settings/conditions and in the amount of data reported. Independently from method of presentation, presentation level, stimuli, language and material used, the following figure (Fig. 4.17) presents an overview of word recognition score reported in the scientific literature during the past 20 years. Overall, the results of 14 studies with a total number of 341 patients, can be compared directly. The mean improvement appears to be 38% at 65 dB SPL, with an unaided mean of 34.1% and an aided mean of 72.1%.
Reflections: a job is what you make it
Published in Sally Sheard, Sir Liam Donaldson, The Nation’s Doctor, 2018
Sally Sheard, Sir Liam Donaldson
It was unfortunate that the BSE crisis broke when there had been no acknowledgement nor any debate on the genuine dilemmas at the heart of decision making involving risk to the public health from food, agriculture or other environmental hazards. The fundamentals had not been sorted out. The methodologies for objective, scientific assessment of risk in such situations were not well-developed. The ground rules for taking precautionary action to protect the public when no definite risk had been established had not been written or even properly discussed. There was no precedent for the communication of public health advice in situations where there was scientific uncertainty and that uncertainty needed to be conveyed to the public. Phrases such as ‘no evidence that. . .’ conveyed a measure of reassurance that may have misled the public. The whole language of risk communication was unclear: what did ‘safe’ actually mean?
Whole-systems working in practice: this house is for real
Published in David Kernick, Helen Bevan, Complexity and Healthcare Organization, 2018
Barbara Douglas, Pat Gordon, Julian Pratt
No, definitely not. It’s so easy to slip into thinking about an attractor as something that attracts things. And then for this whole language of complexity to become just a way of dressing up the old ways of doing things - attractors just become the vision thing, for example. And the idea of an attractor is too useful to lose like that - it’s a chance to get quantitative in a meaningful way, as David Byrne keeps reminding us.7 I’d use the term attractor to describe a pattern you can observe.
Can an app a day keep illiteracy away? Piloting the efficacy of Reading Doctor apps for preschoolers with developmental language disorder
Published in International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 2020
In Australia, there is much debate regarding how best to teach young children how to read, including children with language difficulties (Castles et al., 2018; Ewing, 2018). This debate is underpinned by a historical preference towards whole language methodologies, such as the three-cueing approach, reading recovery and levelled readers, in stark contrast to scientific evidence regarding priority skills (e.g. phoneme awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary and comprehension strategies) and instructional methodologies (e.g. direct, explicit, systematic and multi-sensory) that move children from mastery of less to more complex alphabetic code, supported by decodable texts, leading to refined decoding aptitude and the understanding of printed texts. Presently, literacy advocates are calling for scientific approaches to reading instruction to be infused into everyday educational settings in an effort to reduce the high rates of school-aged reading difficulties (Thomson et al., 2017). Capitalising on technology may afford preschool and primary-school teachers with a method of supporting literacy development either as a supplement to classroom practice or SLP support, or by filling in a gap while children are waiting to receive an SLP service.
Functional basic reading skills in Williams syndrome
Published in Developmental Neuropsychology, 2018
Gabrielle Brawn, Saskia Kohnen, May Tassabehji, Melanie Porter
Interestingly, there were no individuals in our sample with relative strengths in nonword reading compared to irregular word reading. This is at odds with Temple (2006) who reported a group of eight children with WS whose reading age was at the level of their mental age (MA from 5.7 to 7.9) and no impairment in nonword reading relative to mental age matched controls; however, irregular and high frequency word reading was impaired. It is unclear why our sample did not contain any individuals with a relative strength in nonlexical reading. In fact, our findings indicate that if only one reading scale is impaired, it tends to be the nonword reading subscale. It is possible that early instructional methods for these participants may have focused on sight word reading (perhaps having been exposed to a whole-language approach to teaching reading) and have, therefore, not received explicit, systematic phonics instruction. Background information about the type of reading instruction for each participant would be useful here, both in the current study and in Temple (2006). It is certainly possible that Temple’s UK sample received different educational methods of reading instruction to the current Australian population. Temple (2006) hypothesized that this pattern may either reflect the resolution of deep dyslexia with the acquisition of phonological skills leading to an over-reliance on nonlexical reading, or may reflect the fact that there are distinct subtypes of reading disorders in WS. Our findings would appear to support the latter. However, it is also possible that our sample simply did not include a reader with a relative strength in nonlexical reading.
Speech diagnosis and intervention in children with a repaired cleft palate: A qualitative study of Flemish private community speech–language pathologists’ practices
Published in International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 2022
Cassandra Alighieri, Kim Bettens, Sofie Verhaeghe, Kristiane Van Lierde
The use of linguistic approaches was mostly mentioned in the context of early intervention in younger children with a CP ± L (e.g. age 4 years). The interviews revealed two distinct groups of linguistic approaches namely the use of whole-language approaches and the use of phonological approaches. The therapists indicated that whole-language approaches, where the content, function and form of a language were treated simultaneously (Goodman, 1986) were effective in stimulating the young child’s communicative abilities. Some SLPs also talked about the use of metaphonological strategies in this population (Dean & Howell, 1991).