美国听力学家对成人噪声下言语测试实践模式的调查

文献信息

中文摘要

目的： 噪声下言语（SIN）测试对成人听力损失的评估和治疗均有益处。既往调查研究提示，美国听力学家对SIN测试的使用不足，但关于SIN测试的态度、促进因素和障碍的数据有限。本研究的目的是通过一项全面调查，描述成人SIN测试的实践模式。
方法： 本研究使用Qualtrics进行匿名在线调查。符合条件的受访者为对成人进行诊断性测试的美国持证听力学家。调查问题包括人口统计学信息、所接诊的患者人群以及SIN测试实践。采用描述性统计、交叉表分析和关联性分析对回答进行分析。
结果： 共分析275份完整回答。大多数受访者报告在选择、实施和解读SIN测试方面具有高度信心。大多数受访者还报告SIN测试具有较高的临床实用性。约一半受访者报告频繁使用SIN测试，但使用情况取决于工作场所环境。验证患者报告的SIN困难是进行SIN测试最常见的原因，而缺乏时间是最常见的障碍。实施SIN测试的信心与SIN测试的感知临床实用性显著相关。
结论： 结果表明，在这一美国听力学家样本中，对SIN测试具有高度信心且使用频繁。结果还表明，SIN测试可能更多用于评估而非治疗（例如，验证助听器效果）。然而，不能排除自我选择偏倚和社会期望偏倚。尽管如此，我们对实践模式、促进因素和障碍的描述将有助于未来研究和解决方案，以更好地将SIN测试纳入临床使用。
补充材料： https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.33426493。

英文摘要

PURPOSE: Speech-in-noise (SIN) testing can be beneficial for both assessment and treatment of hearing loss in adults. Previous survey studies have suggested that SIN testing is underutilized among U.S. audiologists, but there are limited data on attitudes, facilitators, and barriers to SIN testing. The purpose of this study was to characterize SIN testing practice patterns for adults through a comprehensive survey.
METHOD: This study utilized an anonymous online survey in Qualtrics. Eligible respondents were licensed U.S. audiologists who performed diagnostic testing on adults. Survey questions included demographics, patient populations seen, and SIN testing practices. Responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics, cross-tabulations, and associations.
RESULTS: A total of 275 completed responses were analyzed. Most respondents reported high confidence in selecting, performing, and interpreting SIN testing. Most also reported high clinical usefulness of SIN testing. Approximately half of respondents reported frequent usage of SIN testing, but usage depended on workplace setting. Validating patient reports of SIN difficulties was the most common reason for conducting SIN testing, while lack of time was the most common barrier. Confidence in performing SIN testing was significantly correlated with perceived clinical usefulness of SIN testing.
CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest high confidence and frequent use of SIN testing in this sample of U.S. audiologists. Results also suggest that SIN testing may be used more for assessment than treatment (e.g., verifying outcomes with amplification). However, biases including self-selection bias and social desirability bias cannot be ruled out. Despite this, our characterization of practice patterns, facilitators, and barriers will contribute to future studies and solutions to better incorporate clinical use of SIN testing.
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.33426493.