Cynthia McCormick Richburg

Minimal Hearing Impairment: Major Myths with More Than Minimal Implications

This article addresses five commonly stated misperceptions concerning the effects of minimal hearing loss on the education of children. Helping educators and other professionals recognize these and other possible misperceptions is the first step in appropriately educating children with minimal hearing loss. Making educators and other professionals aware of the need for proper diagnoses and management strategies is crucial for the achievement of effective educational outcomes for these children. Furthermore, resolving these misperceptions will assist in reducing the financial and psychosocial costs frequently associated with the education of these children.

Teachers' Perceptions About Minimal Hearing Loss: A Role for Educational Audiologists

A 25-item survey was administered to 45 teachers to identify what they knew about Minimal Hearing Loss (MHL) and to verify or refute five possible misperceptions reported earlier by Goldberg and McCormick Richburg (2004). Results support the importance of an educational audiologist on the service delivery team to help teachers understand the ramifications of MHL and assist in meeting the educational and psychosocial needs of students with this type of loss. Results also suggest areas for in-service education for classroom teachers, especially regarding the issue of preferential seating.

Is Speed of Stimulus Categorization Slower in Stuttering Speakers? A Cognitive Event-Related Potential Study

This study examined stimuli classification skills in stuttering and nonstuttering speakers using a group study design across two measurement times. Auditory P300 event-related potentials were assessed in 10 stuttering speakers and 12 nonstuttering speakers. Study participants were recorded twice: stuttering speakers before and after a 3-week stuttering modification treatment program and controls three weeks apart. Right and left hemispheric P300 responses to tonal and speechlike stimuli were measured

Special Educators' Perspectives on the Services and Benefits of Educational Audiologists.

A 36-item survey was used to determine whether special educators have access to the services of an audiologist and whether they obtained benefit from the audiologist’s services. Additional goals included gathering information about special educators’ understanding of basic audiological concepts related to a school setting, added job responsibilities brought about by lack of access to an audiologist, and collaboration between these teachers and audiologists. The survey was emailed to special educators identified through online school district directories. A total of 39% of the surveyed special educators had access to an educational/contractual audiologist, with 71% of them believing they received benefit from these services. These benefits included provision of hearing screenings, in-services, and aural (re)habilitation. In all, 73% of the special educators judged their own background understanding of basic audiological information within the “low” range, and most of the special education teachers surveyed did not feel prepared to assist students with hearing aids, FM systems, or cochlear implants. Less than half of the special educators (47%) reported that collaboration between these professionals was strong where available. Special educators consider themselves unprepared to handle the audiological maintenance needs of their students’ equipment and are often unaware of the audiologist’s role, including their availability in schools.

(Central) Auditory Processing Disorder Grand Rounds: Multiple Cases, Multiple Causes, Multiple Outcomes

Purpose The purpose of this article was to provide multiple examples of how (central) auditory processing disorder ([C]APD) is being evaluated and treated at various audiology clinics throughout the United States. Method The authors present 5 cases highlighting the diagnosis and treatment of (C)APD in children and adults. Similarities and differences between these cases have been showcased through detailed histories, evaluation protocol, and treatment options. When possible, the rationale for evaluation procedures and intervention processes were described and compared with guidelines and findings within the literature. Results and Conclusions These cases illustrate the varied processes and clinical protocols by which children and adults are evaluated, diagnosed, counseled, and treated for (C)APD. In addition, similarities and differences between the referral source, evaluation team, developmental history, comorbidities, test battery, recommendations, and remediations were described. The multiple clinic sites, diversity of clinical philosophies, variety of test measures, and diversity of patient populations make these cases ideal for showcasing the assortment of methodologies used with patients who present with histories and characteristics consistent with (C)APD.