MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4240541923 · doi:10.1044/arii18.1.1-ce

SIG 7 Perspectives Vol. 18, No. 1, October 2011

2011· article· en· W4240541923 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nerina Scarinci, Louise Hickson, Linda Worrall

Notice bibliographique

RevuePerspectives on Aural Rehabilitation and Its Instrumentation · 2011
Typearticle
Langueen
DomainePsychology
ThématiqueHearing Impairment and Communication
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésSpouseInternational Classification of Functioning, Disability and HealthPsychologyRehabilitationGerontologyMedicinePolitical sciencePhysical therapy

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

You have accessPerspectives on Aural Rehabilitation and Its InstrumentationCE Questions1 Oct 2011SIG 7 Perspectives Vol. 18, No. 1, October 2011Earn 0.3 CEUs on This Issue Nerina A. Scarinci, Louise M. Hickson, and Linda E. Worrall Nerina A. Scarinci Google Scholar More articles by this author , Louise M. Hickson Google Scholar More articles by this author and Linda E. Worrall Google Scholar More articles by this author https://doi.org/10.1044/arii18.1.1-ce SectionsAboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationTrack Citations ShareFacebookTwitterLinked In Scarinci, Hickson & Worrall: Third Party Disability in Spouses of Older People With Hearing Impairment 1. Using the World Health Organization International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) model to describe third-party disability, it is proposed that the partner's hearing disability serves as an environmental factor for the spouse that then results in the spouse's third party disability. a personal factor for the spouse that then results in the spouse's third party disability. an impairment that then results in the spouse's third party disability. a participation restriction that then results in the spouse's third party disability. 2. Third party disability in spouses of older people with hearing impairment is best described by which of the following ICF components? Body functions and structures Activities and participation Personal factors Environmental factors 3. The Significant Other Scale for Hearing Disability (SOS-HEAR) is a tool that can be used to assess the disability experienced by older people with hearing impairment in their day to day life. the activity limitations and participation restrictions experienced by people with hearing impairment. the third party disability experienced by spouses of older people with hearing impairment. the third party disability experienced by family members as a result of their significant others hearing impairment. 4. In a study examining the degree of third-party disability experienced by spouses of older people with hearing impairment, the majority of spouses experienced mild third-party disability. mild-moderate third-party disability. moderate third-party disability. severe third-party disability. 5. The primary aim of audiologic rehabilitation for older people with hearing impairment and their significant others is to improve the older person's hearing so their significant other is not affected by communication difficulties. to reduce the activity limitations and participation restrictions experienced by the couple as a result of communication difficulties. to encourage the older person to wear a hearing aid. to encourage the older person to make use of assistance listening devices to improve their hearing and communication. Hogan, Reynolds & O’Brien: Towards a Social Psychology of Living With Acquired Hearing Loss 6. The most common psychosocial issue facing people with acquired hearing loss is depression anxiety fear of stigmatization paranoia 7. Social facts become evident when people negatively sanction the way a person behaves in a given social setting. there is scientific evidence to prove their existence. people make others do things their way. you cannot show that social facts exist. 8. In social psychology, social identity is the same as personal identity. is how other people in the community perceive an individual. is how people perceive themselves in terms of their membership in social groups. is how individuals would like others to perceive them. 9. The Montreal Model of Hearing Help is primarily designed to enable clients to overcome the problems of paranoia and depression. social isolation and exclusion. denying their hearing loss. stigmatization, reluctance and misperception. 10. A distinguishing feature of the Montreal Model of Hearing Help is that it uses group work rather than one-to-one service delivery. it addresses psychosocial barriers to accepting hearing loss. it is a more interesting way to provide hearing rehabilitation. it provides a more efficient means of rehabilitating clients. Tucker, Compton, Mankoff & Rulison: Cochlear Implant Connections: A Biopsychosocial Audiologic Rehabilitation Program for Late Deafened Adults With Cochlear Implants 11. Traditional AR approaches typically focus on which one of the following aspects? Reacquisition of speech discrimination abilities Maintaining speech discrimination equilibrium in adjusting to hearing loss Reacquisition of speech production abilities Establishing a client's ability to care for his/her hearing device 12. Which of the components listed below does the biopsychosocial framework of the CIC AR model facilitate? Instruction, perceptual training, and support/counseling Auditory closure, speech discrimination, and identification of phonemes Peer support, self-efficacy, and cognitive behavioral change Device components, mappings, and medical conditions leading to hearing loss 13. The main purpose of the “Roses and Thorns” journal sharing activity is to provide opportunity to practice acoustic highlighting. help clients to improve their speech discrimination abilities. improve clients’ written communication skills. help clients to recognize common challenges and promote mutual problem solving. 14. Which of the following is NOT an emergent variable observed from clients’ narratives in CIC group therapy sessions? Anger Hope Isolation Disillusionment 15. In order to address the biopsychosocial connection between an LDA and his/her support cochlear implant, hearing professionals need to ask questions concerning an LDA's education level, ability to pay for services, and prior knowledge of hearing loss. speech discrimination score, fine motor skills, and knowledge of the auditory system. articulation accuracy, central auditory processing performance, and vocabulary complexity. quality of life, self-efficacy, and hopefulness. Additional Resources FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 18 Issue 1 October 2011 Pages: C1-C3 History Published in issue: Oct 1, 2011 Get Permissions Add to your Mendeley library Metrics Topicsasha-topicsasha-sigsasha-article-typesCopyright & Permissions© 2011 American Speech-Language-Hearing AssociationPDF downloadLoading ...

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,666
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,999

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,001
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0080,002

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,045
Tête enseignante GPT0,332
Écart entre enseignants0,287 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.

Devis d'étudeQualitatif
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2011
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revuePerspectives on Aural Rehabilitation and Its InstrumentationMême sujetHearing Impairment and CommunicationTravaux en français237 207