Self-reported hearing vs Audiologic evaluation to evaluate impact of use of Personal Listening Devices (PLDs) among students of

Speech and Hearing sciences from an Urban Medical University

Harini Sowmya Narayanan*, Priyanka S*, Heramba Ganapathy**

*Intern, **Senior Assistant Professor
Department of SLHS, Sri Ramachandra Institute of Higher Education and Research (Deemed to be University) ,
Sri Ramachandra Institute of Higher
Education and Research Chennai
(Deemed to be University)

Introduction and Need Results and Discussion

• Listening to music is the most common form of recreational exposure to sound [1].
• Excessive exposure to music/media and/or noise can result in hearing loss that is PHASE I: Content validation of the video module
irreversible (Permanent Threshold Shift); this is the second most common form of acquired The mean ratings for each of the categories were:
hearing loss
• High frequency hearing loss can result from repeated and prolonged use of PLDs such as, Content Production quality Possible benefits
smartphones, compact discs (CDs), iPods, and MP3 players 8.3 (SD= 1.11) 7.6 (SD= 1.19) 9.2 (SD=1.15)
• It is estimated that more than 90% of college students own some type of PLD [2]
• Concepts included
• A potential consequence of prevalent PLD use by college-age students puts them at greater • Lighting and sound quality • Useful resource material for
Simplicity of language caregivers of children with
risk of hearing loss when these devices are operated inappropriately video sequencing and
appropriate for the targeted CLP.
transition
• Evaluation to understand the impact of leisure noise on the hearing system should contain a population.
battery of Audiological testing which include Pure tone Audiometry, High Frequency
Audiometry (HFA), Oto-Acoustic Emissions and Immittance.
Cronbach’s alpha, used for estimating the content validity revealed α to be 0.6 indicative of a
• This study is to understand the impact of use of PLDs for longer duration of time at higher
high content validity. This value was similar to the material developed for educating CBR
intensity levels and help professionals in developing and implementing hearing conservation
workers on CLP by Antony et al. (2016)4.
strategies to target the challenges faced by this population.
Objectives PHASE II: Effect of caregiver training program using the developed video module
Table 3: Effect of training on Knowledge
• In this study, we will aim to understand the college going students’ knowledge of intense
levels and continuous exposure to leisure noise and how it affects their hearing, and the
importance of safe listening habits. Knowledge domain Pre (Score range) % Post (Score Range) %
• Also, we will try to correlate the results of the survey with the audiometric evaluation results General Information 100 100
and see the impact caused by unhealthy PLD use on the hearing of the students. 0 100%
Speech therapy 66 - 100 100
Home Practice 22 - 44 88 - 100
Method Figure 1. Effect of training on Skill Table 4 : Effect of training on Skill
PHASE I: ONLINE SURVEY 100 91.6
83.3 83.3 83.3
80 75 75 Skills Pre Post
Development of Content • 
Development of Validation of 66.6 66.6 66.6 Preparation for therapy
Scores (%)

the video validation of the 58.3 58.3 58.3 58.3

script the script video module 60 Techniques facilitate • 
module 50 50
41.6 correct production
• Review of the • Personnel: 2 • A fluent Tamil • Personnel: 40 33.3
Reinforcement • 
available resource SLPs speaker was 3SLPs 25 25 25
materials selected as 20 16.6 13.3 16.6 16.6 Material usage • 
• Validated for: narrator in the • 
pamphlets, • Tool: Rating form Documentation
Booklets • Appropriateness video adapted from
0
of content caregiver 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Absent  Present
Videos Antony et al(2016)
• Usage of • The recordings Pre Post
vocabulary were merged and • Rated for:
• Outline: • Content
edited with Effect of caregiver implemented correction of errors in pressure consonants at home
Introduction appropriate titles • Production
Preparation and voicing quality Two caregivers (c3,c10) did not complete follow up. all caregivers completed recommended
Materials • Possible number of sessions (12) at home
Techniques • Duration of the benefits
Isolation video: 30 min Figure 2: Percentage of correct productions of target consonant: pre and post
/word/sentenc • On a 10cm visual caregiver implemented home program
e analog scale
Inference:
90
Documentation 80 All children improved in the
Percentage of correct traget

80
PHASE II : AUDIOLOGICAL EVALUATION 70 percentage of correct productions
63.3 63.3
except C7
productions(%)

60 53.3
Table 1: Selection of Participants 50
40 40 40
40 33.3 33.3 33.3 Possible reasons for variability :
50 speech and hearing students were identified for the study based on the following inclusion 30
26.6 26.6
criteria
30
20 20 2020 20 • Number of sessions delivered at
20 13.3 13.3 home [9]
10
Participant should Participants were Participants were Participants were No hearing/ear • Variability in the skills of caregivers
0 [7]
Have a constant required to pass required to have a required to have a related concerns 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 11 12
recreational noise otoscopic air conduction MEP : -140 to +140 at the time of the Child • Motivation level of the children and
Pre Post
exposure at high evaluation threshold limits of dapa study the caregivers [10]
intensity <25dBHL from SCV : 0.4 to 1.75ml
0.25 to 8 kHz ECV : 0.4 to 2.1 cm Feedback obtained from caregivers are grouped under:
Comments: Challenges: Suggestions:
• Language was simple, and • Maintaining a quiet • Request for consonants
techniques were easy to environment at home beyond [p],[t] and [k]
implement • child’s cooperation less with
parent

Conclusion
The developed video module was:
• Rated to have high content validity
• Revealed to be a training material to train caregivers
• Reported to be a highly beneficial resource by the caregivers

Future studies may be carried out on a larger number of participants, with a better homogeneity in
comparison to control group via which the efficacy of the home training program can be evaluated.
Table 2: Goals for home program were identified by the SLP*.
CG2 CG3 CG4 CG5 CG6 CG7 CG8 CG9 CG10 CG11 CG12 References:
1. Knapke, S. C., Bender, P., Prows, C., Schultz, J. R., & Saal, H. M. (2010). Parental perspectives of children born with cleft lip and/or palate: A qualitative assessment of suggestions for
healthcare improvements and interventions. Cleft PalateCraniofacial Journal, 47(2), 143–150.
2. Ha, S. (2015). Effectiveness of a parent-implemented intervention program for young children with cleft palate. International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, 79(5), 707–715.
3. Scherer, N. J., D’Antonio, L. L., & McGahey, H. (2008). Early intervention for speech impairment in children with cleft palate. Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal, 45(1), 18–31.
word word word word sentence sentence word syllable word syllable word word 4. Antony, R. M., Nagarajan, R., Hariharan, S. V., & Balasubramaniyan, S. (2016). Development and validation of a resource material on principles of speech therapy for individuals with cleft lip
and palate: A short video film in Tamil. Journal of Cleft Lip Palate and Craniofacial Anomalies, 3(1), 14.
5. Kahn, A., & Pannbacker, M. (2000). Readability of Educational Materials for Clients With Cleft Lip. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 9(10), 3–9.Greene MM, Patra K, Nelson
Analysis: MN, Silvestri JM. Evaluating preterm infants with the Bayley-III: patterns and correlates of development. Research in Developmental Disabilities. 2012 Dec 31;33(6):1948-56.
6. Fukkink, R. G., & Lont, A. (2007). Does training matter? A meta-analysis and review of caregiver training studies. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 22(3), 294–311.
1. Cronbach’s alpha (α) was used for estimating the content validity 7. Laski, K. E., Charlop, M. H., & Schreibman, L. (1988). Training parents to use the natural language paradigm to increase their autistic children’s speech. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,
21(4), 391–400.
2. Percentage analysis of the caregivers performance pre and post training program 8. Andrea, L. J., D'Mello, J., & Kumar, S. (2007). Speech understandability of repaired cleft palate patients pre and post caregiver training. Indian Journal of Plastic Surgery, 40(2), 122.
9. Solomon, R., Necheles, J., Ferch, C., & Bruckman, D. (2007). Pilot study of a parent training program for young children with autism: The PLAY Project Home Consultation program. Autism,
3. Percentage analysis of the children’s correct production of target consonants before and after 11(3), 205–224.
10. Marshall, J., Goldbart, J., & Phillips, J. (2007). Parents’ and speech and language therapists' explanatory models of language development, language delay and intervention. International
the caregiver implemented home program Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 42(5), 533–555

Acknowledgment:  Dean of Faculties, Sri Ramachandra Medical Centre and Research Institute (Deemed to be University)
 Course Chairperson and faculties, Department of Speech, Language & Hearing Sciences, Sri Ramachandra Medical Centre and Research Institute (Deemed to be University)
 Sri Ramachandra Speech and Hearing Alumni Association (SRSHAA) for funding our travel to Mysuru

51st ISHACON, Bangalore, 2019