American Journal of Audiology Vol.19 91-99 December 2010. doi:10.1044/1059-0889(2010/10-0009)
© American Speech-Language-Hearing Association
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow CEUs available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrowCustom Print
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow My Folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Karzon, R. K.
Right arrow Articles by Banerjee, P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Karzon, R. K.
Right arrow Articles by Banerjee, P.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Delicious   Add to Digg   Add to Facebook   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Animated Toys Versus Video Reinforcement in 16–24-Month-Old Children in a Clinical Setting

Roanne K. Karzon

St. Louis Children's Hospital, St. Louis, MO, and Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis

Pia Banerjee

Washington University in St. Louis

Contact author: Roanne K. Karzon, St. Louis Children's Hospital, One Children's Place 3S23, St. Louis, MO 63110. E-mail: roannekk{at}bjc.org.

Purpose: To compare the clinical efficacy of visual reinforcement audiometry (VRA) with animated toy animal reinforcement (AVRA) to the efficacy of VRA with video reinforcement (VVRA) in children age 16 to 24 months in a fast-paced medical practice.

Method: The 145 participants (age 16 to 24 months) were referred by either their primary care physician or an otolaryngology practitioner (physician or nurse practitioner) for audiologic assessment. Children were assigned in a counterbalanced manner to either the AVRA or VVRA group.

Results: Significantly more threshold estimates were obtained with AVRA (M = 5.52) than with VVRA (M = 3.47). There were no significant differences in performance based on age, hearing status, or gender.

Conclusions: Number and relative strength of the visual reinforcers used are posited as the main reasons for the disparate outcomes. Clinical practices that test large numbers of children with VRA would be well-served to have both AVRA and VVRA available to meet the needs of individual patients.

Key Words: visual reinforcement audiometry, hearing assessment, young children


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Delicious Delicious   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Facebook Facebook   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?