检索规则说明:AND代表“并且”;OR代表“或者”;NOT代表“不包含”;(注意必须大写,运算符两边需空一格)
检 索 范 例 :范例一: (K=图书馆学 OR K=情报学) AND A=范并思 范例二:J=计算机应用与软件 AND (U=C++ OR U=Basic) NOT M=Visual
作 者:邱素梅[1] 林琳[1] 蓝小兵[1] 郑明辉[1]
出 处:《中国听力语言康复科学杂志》2011年第4期23-25,共3页Chinese Scientific Journal of Hearing and Speech Rehabilitation
摘 要:目的探讨用不同的方法评价助昕效果的相关性。方法对23例4~6岁听障儿童分别采用问卷调查、助昕听阈、听觉功能测试等方法进行评估、分析。结果家长问卷、助听听阈及听觉功能测试3种评估方法的相关系数为0.23~0.51,呈正相关,其相关系数处于低、中相关程度之间。结论各项评估方法从不同的角度反映患者配戴助听器后的实际效果,相互之间不能替代但又可以互补,临床运用时不能依靠单一的评估方法评价判断助听效果。Objective To explore the correlation between different methods in evaluation of hearing aid outcomes. Methods Twenty-three hearing-impaired children of 4-6 years old received questionnaire surveys, aided hearing threshold tests and auditory assessments. The test results were compared and analyzed. Results The coefficients for the three evaluation methods were between 0.23 and 0.51, indicating low to medium correlations. Conclusion The three methods can evaluate the hearing aid outcomes from different aspects. The effectiveness of hearing aids should be assessed with the three different methods because they are complementary but not replaceable with each other.
分 类 号:R764.43[医药卫生—耳鼻咽喉科]
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在链接到云南高校图书馆文献保障联盟下载...
云南高校图书馆联盟文献共享服务平台 版权所有©
您的IP:216.73.216.15