MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4252900809 · doi:10.1044/arii11.1.12

Multicultural Issues In Audiology

2003· article· en· W4252900809 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Karen Beverly-Ducker

Notice bibliographique

RevuePerspectives on Aural Rehabilitation and Its Instrumentation · 2003
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineNeuroscience
ThématiqueHearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMulticulturalismAshaAudiologyPsychologyMedicineFamily medicineLibrary scienceMedical educationLinguisticsPedagogy

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

No AccessPerspectives on Aural Rehabilitation and Its InstrumentationArticle1 May 2003Multicultural Issues In Audiology Karen Beverly-Ducker Karen Beverly-Ducker Google Scholar More articles by this author https://doi.org/10.1044/arii11.1.12 SectionsAboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationTrack Citations ShareFacebookTwitterLinked In References ASHA. (2000). 2000 Omnibussurvey: Practice trends in audiology. Rockville, MD: Author. Google Scholar ASHA. (2002). 2002 Omnibus survey Practice trends in audiology. Rockville, MD: Author. Google Scholar Ballachanda, B. B. (2001a). Audiological assessment of “We, the foreign born.”.Division 14, Communication Disorders and Sciences in Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Populations Newsletter, 7(1), 11–13. ASHAWireGoogle Scholar Ballachanda, B. B. (2001b). Meeting the needs of multicultural clients.Advance for Audiologists, 3(5), 50–53. Google Scholar Bierman, N., & Nungesser, N. (2002). Home remedies used in the treatment of hearing or ear problems.Division 14, Communication Disorders and Sciences in Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Populations Newsletter, 8(1), 6–8. ASHAWireGoogle Scholar Boyd, S., & Pearlman, R. (1988). Otitis media, genetics and environment: Some considerations for emerging nations.The Howard Journal of Communications, 1, 27–32. Google Scholar Cohen, M., Branch, W., McKie, V., & Adams, R. (1994). Neuropsychological impairments in children with sickle cell anemia and cerebrovascular accidents.Clinical Pediatrics, 33, 517–534. Google Scholar Cokely, J. A., & Yager, C. R. (1993). Scoring Spanish word-recognition measures.Ear and Hearing, 14, 395–400. CrossrefGoogle Scholar Crago, M. B., Hurteau, A. M., & Ayukawa, H. M. (1990). Culturally based audiological services for hearing impaired Inuit in northern Quebec.Journal of Speech Language Pathology and Audiology, 14, 33–46. Google Scholar Crandell, C. (1996). Effects of sound field amplification on the speech perception of ESL children.Educational Audiology Monograph, 4, 1–5. Google Scholar Crandell, C. C., & Smaldino, J.J. (1996). Speech perception in noise by children for whom English is a second language.American Journal of Audiology, 5(3), 47–51. ASHAWireGoogle Scholar Davis, P. N., Gentry, B., & Dancer, J. (2001). Sickle cell disease and communication disorders.Division, 14, Communication Disorders and Sciences in Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Populations Newsletter, 7(1), 4–8. Google Scholar Doyle, J., & Wong, L. L. N. (1996). Mismatch between aspects of hearing impairment and hearing disability/handicap in adult/elderly Cantonese speakers: Some hypotheses concerning cultural and linguistic influences.Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 7, 442–446. Google Scholar Eriks-Brophy, A., & Ayukawa, H. (2000). The benefits of sound field amplification in classrooms of Inuit students of Nunavik: A pilot project.Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 31(4), 324–335. ASHAWireGoogle Scholar Flores, P., Martin, F. N., & Champlin, C. A. (1996). Providing audiological services to Spanish speakers.American Journal of Audiology, 5(1), 69–73. ASHAWireGoogle Scholar Gentry, B., Davis, P., & Dancer, J. (1997). Failure rates of young patients with sickle cell disease on a hearing screening test.Perceptual and Motor Skills, 84, 434. Google Scholar Gravel, J. S., & Wallace, I. F. (2000). Effects of otitis media with effusion on hearing in the first 3 years of life.Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 43(3), 631–644. Google Scholar Hodgson, W. R., & Montgomery, P. (1994). Hearing impairment and bilingual children: Considerations in assessment and intervention.Seminars in Speech and Language, 15, 174–182. Google Scholar Jones, R. C., & Kretschmer, L. W. (1988). The attitudes of parents of Black hearing-impaired students.Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 19, 41–50. ASHAWireGoogle Scholar Jones, R. C., & Richardson, J. R. (1995). A study of the availability of hearing healthcare services in African-American communities.ECHO, 17, 29–32. Google Scholar Jupiter, T., & Palagonia, C. L. (2001). The Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly Screening Version adapted for use with elderly Chinese American individuals.American Journal of Audiology, 10(2), 99–103. ASHAWireGoogle Scholar Knight, J. (1997). Speech tests in some other languages than English. In M. Martin (Ed.), Speech audiometry (pp. 315–324). San Diego, CA: Singular Publishing Group. Google Scholar Lau, C. C., & So, K. W. (1988). Material for Cantonese speech audiometry constructed by appropriate phonetic principles.British Journal of Audiology, 22, 297–304. CrossrefGoogle Scholar Lee, D. J., Carlson, D. L., Lee, H. M., Ray, L. A., & Markides, K. S. (1991). Hearing loss and hearing aid use in Hispanic adults: Results from the Hispanic Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.American Journal of Public Health, 81, 1471–1474. Google Scholar Levi, A. V., Boyett-Solano, J., Nicholson, B., & Eisenberg, L. S. (2001). Multilingualism and children with cochlear implants. How multilingualism may influence functional speech perception and language test measures of young recipients of cochlear implants.The Hearing Review, 8(6), 44–49. Google Scholar Lichenstein, M. J., & Hazuda, H. P. (1998). Cross-cultural adaptation of the Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly-Screening Version (H.H.IE-S) for use with Spanish-speaking Mexican Amer-icans.Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 46, 492–498. Google Scholar Lopez, S. M., Martin, F. N., & Thibodeau, L. M. (1997). Performance of monolingual and bilingual speakers of English and Spanish on the Synthetic Sentence Identification Test.American Journal of Audiology, 6 (3), 33–38. ASHAWireGoogle Scholar Martin, F. N., Villalobos, A., & Champlin, C.A. (1993). A comparison between English and Spanish word recognition tests.Tejas, 19( spring/ summer), 25–27. Google Scholar McCullough, J. A., Wilson, R. H., Birck, J. D., & Anderson, L. G. (1994). A multimedia approach for estimating speech recognition of multilingual clients.American Journal of Audiology, 3, 19–22. ASHAWireGoogle Scholar Moore, J. A. (1999). Comparison of risk of conductive hearing loss among three ethnic groups of Arctic audiology patients.Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 42(6), 1311–1322. ASHAWireGoogle Scholar Naeem, A., & Newton, V. (1996). Prevalence of sensorineural hearing loss in Asian children.British Journal of Audiology, 30(5), 332–339. Google Scholar Newman-Ryann, J., Northrup, B. D., & Villarreal-Emery, C. (1995). Testing balance function in Spanish-speaking patients: Guidelines for non-Spanish-speaking clinicians.American Journal of Audiology, 4, 15–23. Google Scholar Plant, G., Gnosspelius, J., & Levitt, H. (2000). The use of tactile supplements in lipreading Swedish and English: A single-subject study.Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 43(1), 172–183. Google Scholar Proctor, A., & Ramkissoon, I. (2001). Speech materials for testing hearing of deaf and hard of hearing children from non-English speaking backgrounds.Division 14, Communication Disorders and Sciences in Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Populations Newsletter, 7(1), 8–10. ASHAWireGoogle Scholar Ramkissoon, I. (2001). Speech recognition thresholds for multilingual populations.Communication Disorders Quarterly, 22(3), 158–162. Google Scholar Ramkissoon, I., BilgermR. C., & Proctor, A. (2000). Digit-speech reception thresholds among non-native speakers of English.The ASHA Leader, 5 (16), 72. Google Scholar Ramkissoon, I., & Khan, F. (2002). Serving multicultural clients with hearing loss: How linguistic diversity affects audiologic management.The ASHA Leader, 8 (3), 110–11, 27. Google Scholar Ramkissoon, I., Proctor, A., Lansing, C. R., & Bilger, R. C. (2002). Digit Speech Recognition Thresholds (SRT) for non-native speakers of English.American Journal of Audiology, 11 (1), 23–28. ASHAWireGoogle Scholar Ramos, H. S., Windham, R. A., & Katz, J. (1992). Introducing a Spanish-language version of the Staggered Word Test.The Hearing Journal, 45, 39–43. Google Scholar Schneider, B. S. (1992). Effect of dialect on the determination of speech-reception thresholds in Spanish-speaking children.Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 23, 159–162. ASHAWireGoogle Scholar Scott, D. M. (1998). Multicultural aspects of hearing disorders and audiology. In. D. E. Battle (Ed.), Communication disorders in multicultural populations, (2nd ed., pp. 335–354). Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann. Google Scholar Takayanagi, S., Dirks, D. D., & Moshfegh, A. (2002). Lexical and talker effects on word recognition among native and non-native listeners with normal and impaired hearing.Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 45(3), 585–597. ASHAWireGoogle Scholar Tur-Kaspa, H., & Dromi, E. (2001). Grammatical deviations in the spoken and written language of Hebrew-speaking children with hearing impairments.Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 32 (2), 79–89. ASHAWireGoogle Scholar Von Hapsburg, D., & Peña, E. D. (2002). Understanding bilingualism and its impact on speech audiometry.Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 45, 202–213. ASHAWireGoogle Scholar Additional Resources FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 11Issue 1May 2003Pages: 12-15 Get Permissions Add to your Mendeley library History Published in issue: May 1, 2003 Metrics Topicsasha-topicsasha-sigsasha-article-typesCopyright & Permissions© 2003 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 machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,014
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,039
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,045
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,150

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0140,039
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,001
Bibliométrie0,0020,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0080,009
Communication savante0,0080,007
Science ouverte0,0020,011
Intégrité de la recherche0,0050,005
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0450,006

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 Opus0,023
Tête enseignante GPT0,323
Écart entre enseignants0,300 · 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; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

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

En bref

Citations1
Publié2003
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revuePerspectives on Aural Rehabilitation and Its InstrumentationMême sujetHearing Loss and RehabilitationTravaux en français237 207