Coordinator’s Column No need to take a back seat…we have to show what we can do! The present column presents my current appreciation of how audiologic rehabilitation (AR) and evaluative research in AR has evolved over the past 30–40 years. My perception may be accurate, or it may not. Perhaps you ... Coordinator's Column
Coordinator's Column  |   October 01, 2013
Coordinator’s Column
Author Notes
Article Information
Audiologic / Aural Rehabilitation / Coordinator's Column
Coordinator's Column   |   October 01, 2013
Coordinator’s Column
SIG 7 Perspectives on Aural Rehabilitation and Its Instrumentation, October 2013, Vol. 20, 41-43. doi:10.1044/arii20.2.41
SIG 7 Perspectives on Aural Rehabilitation and Its Instrumentation, October 2013, Vol. 20, 41-43. doi:10.1044/arii20.2.41
No need to take a back seat…we have to show what we can do!
The present column presents my current appreciation of how audiologic rehabilitation (AR) and evaluative research in AR has evolved over the past 30–40 years. My perception may be accurate, or it may not. Perhaps you will agree, but perhaps you will disagree with some of the views that are expressed…. that’s ok!
I have been involved in AR for more than 30 years (Wow! Time really does fly). I have to admit outright that this column offers is a very personal account of the evolution of evaluative research in AR. The way I see things, we are currently in the 3rd generation of AR service provision, at least as it concerns adults (primarily older adults) with acquired hearing loss. First, in the ‘70s and ‘80s, as a student and young professional, I was taught the components of AR activities that should be included in comprehensive AR intervention programs (e.g., hearing aid fitting and adjustment, auditory training, speechreading, informational counseling, personal adjustment counseling, communication strategies, etc…). The design of those AR activities was based partly on the most up-to-date experimental work and mostly on the best clinical expertise that was available at that time. (I have in mind, the Walter Reed comprehensive AR program, the work at Northwestern, the work of O’Neill and Oyer, of Ross and Giolas, of Goldstein, Berger, Bergman, Binnie, Sanders, and others). Although rarely supported by experimental data, expert clinicians who used these programs knew that they were beneficial to their clients.
First Page Preview
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview ×
View Large
Become a SIG Affiliate
Pay Per View
Entire SIG 7 Perspectives on Aural Rehabilitation and Its Instrumentation content & archive
24-hour access
This Issue
24-hour access
This Article
24-hour access
We've Changed Our Publication Model...
The 19 individual SIG Perspectives publications have been relaunched as the new, all-in-one Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups.