HR Archives | January-April 1999 Hearing Review

This article series was published prior to creation of Hearing Review’s website. You can download the article series (ie, all 4 articles) as a PDF by CLICKING HERE.

Biography in 1999: Julie Purdy, PhD, is a staff audiologist at Starkey Labs-Canada, Ltd, Mississauga, Ontario.

Acknowledgement: The article was adapted from a seminar presented at the 1998 International Hearing Society (IHS) Convention in Nashville, Tenn.

Validation of Hearing Instruments, Part 1: Patient Questionnaire. Hearing Review. 1999[Jan];6(1):16-22.

In Part 1, Dr Purdy outlines hearing aid validation tools, particularly the use of the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) and the Hearing Activity Questionnaire (HAQ), and the Shortened Hearing Aid Performance Inventory (SHAPI), for pinpointing patient needs and improving customer satisfaction.

Validation of Hearing Instruments, Part 2: Linear Fitting Prescriptions. Hearing Review. 1999[Feb];6(2):42-48.

In Part 2, Dr Purdy looks at the hearing aid validation methods including the NAL, POGO, and Berger methods, as well as the use of real-ear measurements (REM) in verification.

Validation of Hearing Instruments, Part 3: Non-linear Fitting Prescriptions. Hearing Review. 1999[Mar];6(3):22-30.

In Part 3, Dr Purdy covers REM terminology (REUR, REOR, REAR, REIR, RESR and RECD), and then describes three prominent non-linear fitting formulas of the day: FIG6, DSL(i/o), and the IHAFF hearing aid fitting method, including VIOLA. She also includes a sidebar, “So What Prescriptive Method Do We Use?”

Validation of Hearing Instruments, Part 4: Output Measures. Hearing Review. 1999[Apr];6(4):24-26, 94.

Part 4 takes a deep dive into output measurement methods, including LDLs, UCLs, and the standardization of these values, as well as conversion factors. Dr Purdy also details output verification methods in REM, including Direct RESR, Indirect RESR, and soundfield verification.