DESIGN: For each participant, the output of the initial hearing aid fitting was compared to DSL v5.0 Child prescriptive targets and again after the fitting was adjusted using coupler-based verification and RECD measures. Outcomes for initial and adjusted fittings were examined using the Speech Intelligibility Index (SII), Parent's Evaluation of Aural/Oral Performance of Children (PEACH) rating scale, and speech perception tests in quiet and noise.
STUDY SAMPLE: Sixty-eight children aged 3 months to 17 years with moderate to profound hearing loss participated in the study.
RESULTS: Fit-to-targets improved significantly after hearing aids were adjusted to match targets to within 5 dB RMSE. Adjusted hearing aids provided increased aided audibility compared to initial fittings and resulted in improved speech perception scores and parent-reported hearing performance. Fifty percent of the children aged 6 to 17 years preferred their adjusted fitting compared to 10% who preferred their initial fitting.
CONCLUSIONS: Improvement in fit-to-target to a validated paediatric prescriptive formula using best practice procedures can result in improved auditory outcomes and possible self-reported satisfaction.
METHOD: The primary data source of the study consists of excerpts of verbal expressions within the familial context. The provenance of the locational data can be traced to a familial unit with a cultural legacy deeply embedded in Javanese customs. The data were collected using observation and participation methodologies, employing advanced techniques of recording and note taking. The data were categorized and characterized to identify the various data types and formats. The tabulated results of classification and typification are presented to triangulate theory through expert validation and justification of theories. The method of contextual analysis was utilized to conduct the data analysis that relies on the pragmatic context.
RESULTS: The study's findings indicate the following: The Javanese language encompasses various modes of pseudo-directive utterances, such as commanding, ordering, suggesting, insinuating, and recommending. In addition, the Javanese language encompasses pseudo-directive pragmatics such as warning, prohibiting, reminding, suggesting, and commanding.
CONCLUSION: This research will significantly assist in formulating a pragmatic framework that considers cultural factors, as other linguistic phenomena in various regional languages remain unresolved.
METHODS: Records were identified by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, ISRCTN, CENTRAL, WHO ICTRP and the NIHR UK clinical trials gateway. The search included records published from 1946 to March 2020. Included studies were those as follows: (a) recruiting adults aged 18 years or older diagnosed with SSD of average threshold severity worse than 70 dB HL in the worse-hearing ear and normal (or near-normal) hearing in the better-hearing ear, (b) evaluating interventions to restore bilateral and/or binaural hearing and (c) enrolling those adults in a controlled trial, before-and-after study or cross-over study. Studies that fell just short of the participant eligibility criteria were included in a separate sensitivity analysis.
RESULTS: Ninety-six studies were included (72 full inclusion, 24 sensitivity analysis). For fully included studies, 37 exclusively evaluated interventions to re-establish bilateral hearing and 29 exclusively evaluated interventions to restore binaural hearing. Overall, 520 outcome domains were identified (350 primary and 170 secondary). Speech-related outcome domains were the most common (74% of studies), followed by spatial-related domains (60% of studies). A total of 344 unique outcome instruments were reported. Speech-related outcome domains were measured by 73 different instruments and spatial-related domains by 43 different instruments. There was considerable variability in duration of follow-up, ranging from acute (baseline) testing to 10 years after the intervention. The sensitivity analysis identified no additional outcome domains.
CONCLUSIONS: This review identified large variability in the reporting of outcome domains and instruments in studies evaluating the therapeutic benefits and harms of SSD interventions. Reports frequently omitted information on what domains the study intended to assess, and on what instruments were used to measure which domains.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: The systematic review protocol is registered on PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews): Registration Number CRD42018084274 . Registered on 13 March 2018, last revised on 7th of May 2019.
AIMS: This research aims to measure the success and effectiveness of the SPP system using three surrogate measures: usage (frequency of use), performance (recognition accuracy) and satisfaction (children's subjective reactions), and how these measures are aligned with the success of the SPP system, as well as to each other.
METHODS AND PROCEDURES: We have measured the absolute change in the word error rate (WER) between the pre- and post-training, using the ANOVA test. Correlation co-efficiency (CC) analysis was conducted to test the relation between the surrogate measures, while a Structural Equation Model (SEM) was used to investigate the causal relations between the measures.
OUTCOMES AND RESULTS: The CC test results indicate a positive correlation between the surrogate measures. The SEM supports all the proposed gtheses. The ANOVA results indicate that SPP is effective in reducing the WER of impaired speech.
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: The SPP system is an effective assistive tool, especially for high levels of severity. We found that performance is a mediator of the relation between "usage" and "satisfaction".