Clinician-developed modifiable script to support informational counselling during real-ear measurements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to have experienced audiologists identify the key ideas to convey to clients about real-ear measurement (REM) verification and create a modifiable script to use for REM informational counselling. DESIGN: A modified concept mapping design was used. STUDY SAMPLE: Seventeen experienced audiologists participated in one or more research activities: brainstorming individual counselling statements; rating statements on importance and feasibility; and discussing in a focus group how the statements can be used in a counselling script. RESULTS: Brainstorming generated 227 statements. Researchers cleaned, combined, and recirculated the statements to participants for further ideas, resulting in 136 statements for sorting and rating. Sorting yielded eight categories: Other uses of the hearing aid (HA) test system (11 statements); Purpose of REM (24 statements); Description of procedure (14 statements); Personalisation of hearing aids (14 statements); Setting expectations (21 statements); Speech map stimulus levels (17 statements); Client preparation (19 statements); and On-screen orientation (16 statements). After rating and discussion in the focus group, the final script included 57 statements. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified the key ideas to convey during REM informational counselling and produced a modifiable script that individuals can use when conducting REM.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".