Download PDF
J Am Acad Audiol 2000; 11(04): 224-229
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1748048
Original Article

Articulation Index and Hearing Handicap

Lisa M. Holcomb
Audiology Division, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, Michigan
,
Michael A. Nerbonne
Division of Audiology, Department of Communication Disorders, Central Michigan University, Mount Pleasant, Michigan
,
Dan F. Konkle
Division of Audiology, Department of Communication Disorders, Central Michigan University, Mount Pleasant, Michigan
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
  PDF Download  Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

This investigation examined the relationship between perceived hearing handicap and the Articulation Index (Al) and the extent to which this relationship was influenced by the variables age, gender, degree of hearing loss, and audiometric slope. Subject age, gender, pure-tone thresholds, and scores for the Self-Assessment of Communication (SAC) and the' Significant Other Assessment of Communication (SOAC) were extracted retrospectively from 373 patient files (194 males, 179 females). Correlation analysis revealed a significant (p < .01) negative relationship between AI values and both measures of hearing handicap, and also indicated that SAC/SOAC total scores correlated significantly (p > .01) with each other. Partial correlation analyses revealed that degree of hearing loss was the only variable under study that had substantial influence on the strength of ΑΙ/hearing handicap correlations.

Abbreviations: Al = Articulation Index, SAC = Self-Assessment of Communication, SOAC = Significant Other Assessment of Communication

Key Words

Articulation Index - hearing handicap


Publication History

Article published online:
07 April 2022

© 2000. American Academy of Audiology. This article is published by Thieme.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • REFERENCES

  • Alpiner JG, Schow RL. (1993). Rehabilitative evaluation of hearing-impaired adults. In: Alpiner JG, McCarthy P, eds. Rehabilitative Audiology: Children and Adults. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 237–283.
  • American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (1992). Considerations in screening adults/older persons for handicapping hearing impairments. ASHA 34:81–87.
  • Bentler RA. (1994). Future trends in verification strategies. In: Valente Μ, ed. Strategies for Selecting and Verifying Hearing Aid Fittings. New York: Thieme, 343–362.
  • Cox RM, Alexander GC. (1995). Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit. Ear Hear 16:176–186.
  • Gates GA, Popelka GR. (1992). Neural presbycusis: a diagnostic dilemma. Am J Otol 13:313–317.
  • Giolas TG. (1990). "The measurement of hearing handicap" revisited: a 20–year perspective. Ear Hear lKSuppl l):2–5.
  • Hug GA, Jacobson GP, Newman GW. (1996, April). Relationship between Improved Audibility of Speech and Self-perceived Hearing Handicap after Hearing Aid Use. Poster session presented at the Meeting of the American Academy of Audiology, Salt Lake City, UT.
  • Humes LE. (1991). Understanding the speech-understanding problems of the hearing impaired. J Am Acad Audiol 2:59–69.
  • Humes LE, Riker S. (1992). Evaluation of two clinical versions of the articulation index. Ear Hear 13:406–409.
  • Katz J, White TP. (1997). Introduction to the handicap of hearing impairment: auditory impairment versus hearing handicap. In: Hull RH, ed. Aural Rehabilitation. San Diego: Singular, 19–36.
  • Kielinen L, Nerbonne M. (1990). Further investigation of the relationship between hearing handicap and audio-metric measures of hearing impairment. J Acad Rehabil Audiol 23:89–94.
  • Killion MC, Mueller HG, Pavlovic CV, Humes LE. (1993). A is for audibility. Hear J 46:29.
  • Kruger B, Kruger FM. (1994). Future trends in hearing aid fitting strategies: with a view towards 2020. In: Valente Μ, ed. Strategies for Selecting and Verifying Hearing Aid Fittings. New York: Thieme, 300–342.
  • McCarthy PA. (1994). Self-assessment inventories: they're not just for aural rehab anymore. Hear J 45:10, 41–43.
  • McCarthy PA. (1998). Self-assessment revisited. Hear J 51:3, 10–18.
  • Mueller HG. (1992). Insertion gain measurements. In: Mueller HG, Hawkins DB, Northern JL, eds. Probe Microphone Measurements: Hearing Aid Selection and Assessment. San Diego: Singular, 113–144.
  • Mueller HG, Killion MC. (1990). An easy method for calculating the articulation index. Hear J 43:14–17.
  • Pavlovic CV. (1988). Articulation index predictions of speech intelligibility in hearing aid selection. ASHA 30:63–65.
  • Pavlovic CV. (1991). Speech recognition and five articulation indexes. Hear Instr 42:9, 20–23.
  • Pavlovic CV. (1994). Band importance functions for audiological applications. Ear Hear 15:100–103.
  • Rankovic C. (1991). An application of the articulation index to hearing aid fitting. J Speech Hear Res 34:391–402.
  • Schow RL. (1995, May). The Status and Future of SAC & SOAC. Paper presented at the International Collegium of Rehabilitative Audiology, Göteborg, Sweden.
  • Schow RL, Balsara NR, Smedley TC, Whitcomb CJ. (1993). Aural rehabilitation by ASHA audiologists: 1980–1990. Am J Audiol 2:28–37.
  • Schow RL, Gatehouse S. (1990). Fundamental issues in self-assessment of hearing. Ear Hear lKSuppl 1):6–15.
  • Schow RL, Nerbonne MA. (1982). Communication screening profile: use with elderly clients. Ear Hear 3:135–143.
  • Schow RL, Short BT, Nerbonne MA. (1983, April). Communication Ability Assessment of Hard of Hearing Adults. Paper presented at the Western Regional Conference of the American Speech and Hearing Association, Honolulu, HI.
  • Schow RL, Smedley TC, Longhurst TM. (1990). Self-assessment and impairment in adult/elderly hearing screening—recent data and new perspectives. Ear Hear lKSuppl l):17–27.
  • Stach, B. (1998). Word-recognition testing: why not do it well? Hear J 51, 6:10–16.
  • Stach ΒΑ, Davis-Thaxton Μ, Jerger J. (1995). Improving the efficiency of speech audiometry: computer-based approach. J Am Acad Audiol 6:330–333.
  • Stelmachowicz P, Lewis D, Kablerer A, Creutz T. (1994). Situational Hearing-Aid Response Profile (SHARP, Version 2.0). Omaha, NE: Boys Town National Research Hospital.
  • Studebaker GA. (1992). The effect of equating loudness on audibility-based hearing aid selection procedures. J Am Acad Audiol 3:113–118.
  • Studebaker GA, Sherbecoe RL. (1993). Frequency-importance functions for speech recognition. In: Studebaker GA, Hochberg I, eds. Acoustical Factors Affecting Hearing Aid Performance. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon, 185–204.
  • Sturmak M. (1987). Communication Ability Assessment of an Adult Hard-of-hearing Population. Unpublished master's thesis, Idaho State University, Pocatello, ID.
  • Taylor CL, Kraus C. (1998, April). Self-assessment Results Compared with Actual and Predicted Word-Recognition Scores. Poster session presented at the Meeting of the American Academy of Audiology, Miami Beach, FL.
  • Ventry IM, Weinstein BE. (1982). The hearing handicap inventory for the elderly: a new tool. Ear Hear 3:128–134.
  • Walden BE, Schwartz DM, Williams DL, Holum-Hardegen LL, Crowley JM. (1983). Test of the assumptions underlying comparative hearing aid evaluations. J Speech Hear Res 21:507–518.
  • Wilde G, Humes LE. (1990). Application of the articulation index to the speech recognition of normal and impaired listeners wearing hearing protection. J Acoust Soc Am 87:1192–1199.
  • Wiley TL, Stoppenbach DT, Feldhake LJ, Moss KA, Thordardottir ET. (1995). Audiologic practices: what is popular versus what is supported by evidence. Am J Audiol 4:1, 26–34.