Copyright © 2024 AudiologyOnline - All Rights Reserved

AudiologyOnline Phone: 800-753-2160

Exam Preview

20Q: Hearing Aid Verification - Can You Afford Not To?

View Course Details Please note: exam questions are subject to change.
Print

1.  Verification of a hearing aid fitting refers to:
  1. checking whether the hearing aid conforms to good manufacturing practices (GMP)
  2. checking whether fitting goals have been met
  3. checking whether the patient perceives benefit from the hearing aid
  4. checking whether the hearing aid solves the patient's initial complaint or problem
2.  Verifying that hearing aid gain and output is correct and that the fitting passes the quality control measure can ONLY be accomplished:
  1. using real speech in the real world
  2. by determining if the hearing aids are acceptable to the patient
  3. programming the hearing aids in the manufacturer's software using the default fitting and proprietary fitting approach
  4. using probe-microphone measures and a validated prescriptive target and appropriate input signal
3.  Over-the-counter hearing aids:
  1. Will not be available in our lifetime due to regulatory barriers
  2. Will make audiology care obsolete
  3. Have been made illegal by recent legislation
  4. Have been mandated by recent legislation and the FDA is currently working on establishing the category so that devices can be brought to marketing
4.  Humes and colleagues (2017) compared a "consumer decides" model with a "best practices" model of delivering hearing aids. They found:
  1. The "consumer decides" model yielded significantly higher outcomes.
  2. Hearing aids are efficacious for older adults with mild to moderate hearing loss only when delivered by an audiologist using best practices.
  3. The "consumer decides" model yielded only slightly poorer outcomes than the "best practices" model based on self-assessment inventories.
  4. Hearing aids are only efficacious for adults with greater than a mild hearing loss.
5.  Humes and colleagues (2017) research involving a consumer-directed OTC approach to hearing aids should not be generalized to all OTC delivery models because:
  1. 41% of the initial participant pool was rejected from the study
  2. The devices used were premier RIC products from a leading manufacturer
  3. A majority of the time, the consumer did not pick the hearing aid that would give them the highest intelligibility/best fitting according to the NAL-NL2 precription
  4. All of the above
6.  If you are fitting a hearing aid to an adult patient with a moderate hearing loss that has a typical presbycusis pattern, and you get a good match to a validated prescriptive target, you can generally expect the aided Speech Intelligibility Index to be about:
  1. .05 - .06
  2. .50 - .55
  3. .65 - .75
  4. .90 - .100
7.  Valente and colleagues (in press 2017) compared hearing aids verified and fit to NAL-NL2 targets versus hearing aids set to manufacturer's proprietary first fit algorithm. They found:
  1. Speech recognition performance in the lab and real world assessment inventories showed better outcomes for the verified NAL-NL2 fitting, and most patients preferred the NAL-NL2 fitting after a real-world trial
  2. Speech recognition performance in the lab and real world was better for the NAL-NL2 fitting, but most patients preferred the proprietary fittings after a real world trial
  3. Most patients rejected the NAL-NL2 fittings due to sound quality so further measures could not be conducted
  4. The proprietary fittings outperformed the NAL-NL2 fittings on all measures.
8.  The Valente and colleagues (2017) research, based on APHAB results, found that a NAL fitting was superior to the manufacturer's default fitting for:
  1. The APHAB Background Noise scale only
  2. The APHAB Reverberation scale only
  3. Both the APHAB Background Noise and the Reverberation scale
  4. Neither the APHAB Background Noise or the Reverberation scale
9.  Amlani, Pumford and Gessling (2016) looked at probe-microphone measures effect on consumers' willingness to pay. They found that conducting probe-mic measures:
  1. Negatively impacted consumers' willingness to pay
  2. Improved consumers' willingness to pay for new hearing aid users only
  3. Improved willingness to pay for new hearing aid users and experienced users
  4. Did not have any effect on consumers' willingness to pay
10.  According to the evidence, verification of hearing aids using probe-microphone measures
  1. has benefits for the consumer but is too time consuming and expensive for the professional
  2. has benefits for the professional but not the consumer
  3. has not been proven to benefit either the consumer or the professional
  4. benefits the consumer and the professional fitting the hearing aids

Our site uses cookies to improve your experience. By using our site, you agree to our Privacy Policy.