This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

MYRTLE E. GILLESPIE, MA; MAJ MARION R. GILLESPIE, MC; MAJ JAMES E. CRESTON, MC

Arch Otolaryngol. 1965;82(5):515-517.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

IN RECENT years it has been questioned whether a hospital clinic should engage in hearing aid selection. Carhart¹ (1950) states that the clinic probably should not seek to find the "best hearing aid fitting" but that rather it should assess the person's need for amplification and his difficulties with wearable instruments.

The method suggested by Carhart² in 1946 has been the basic means for selection of hearing aids since World War II. By this method an audiologist, after reviewing the patient's hearing test results, selects two or three aids that, based on his experience, will most likely meet the needs of that particular patient. He then determines which is the most suitable aid after testing for sensitivity (gain), for discrimination in quiet and in noise, and for tolerance.

The usual method of hearing aid selection necessitates the scheduling of two hours of the audiologist's time. In 1946 Davis . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
USA; USA; WASHINGTON, DC

From the Walter Reed General Hospital, Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Audiology and Speech Service (Mrs. Gillespie and Maj Creston), Otolaryngology Service (Maj Gillespie).

Footnotes
Submitted for publication Feb 16, 1965.

Reprint requests to Box 27, ENT Clinic, Second General Hospital, APO New York, NY 09180 (Mrs. Gillespie).

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?