Pilot evaluation of a protocol and a clinical tool developed to assess the audiological needs of adults with hearing loss
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the Québec Audiological Assessment Protocol for Younger and Older Adults (QAAP-YOA) and its accompanying clinical tool efficacy to assess the needs of individuals with hearing loss in a simulated context. This study is the Phase 2 in the development of the QAAP-YOA. Design: Participants completed two needs assessments with simulated clients and wrote audiological reports, while applying the QAAP-YOA with and without the use of its clinical tool. Interviews were filmed, and reports collected. Both were scored by two independent evaluators. A qualitative analysis of reports was also conducted. Study sample: Eleven audiology students and four early-career audiologists (n = 15). Results: The clinical tool did not influence the interview process since both experimental conditions had similar compliance rates to the protocol (p = 0.114). Compliance rates for assessment reports were higher with the clinical tool (p < 0.001). Participants’ conclusions after applying the QAAP-YOA were consistent across participants. The information provided in the reports was more comprehensive and coherent with the client’s needs when participants used the clinical tool. Conclusions: The QAAP-YOA can lead to a greater standardisation of needs assessments and to more comprehensive reports, which may lead to intervention programs more closely aligned with clients’ needs.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.205 | 0.196 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".