APA: American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2004). Guidelines for the Audiologic
Assessment of Children From Birth to 5 Years of Age. Available at
http://www.asha.org/members/deskref.journals/deskref/default.
Research Design and Description: This article was not research, but instead listed the
guidelines for assessing children ages birth to age 5 years. ASHA did a wonderful job of
compiling all of this information and making it available to audiologists. They do make a point
of stating that these are guidelines for practice, not standards.
After the “Scope” and “Introduction” this article lays out guidelines regarding everything from
ANSI standards for background noise to sedation and universal precautions. Family culture is
also addressed and how the parents/caregivers should be included at each phase of testing.
Hypothesis: These was no hypothesis with this article; however, the committee did recognize
that the guidelines had not been updated since 1991 and that since screening technology and
intervention practices had changed since then, it was important to have new guidelines that
reflect the same. They also see that since UNHS was growing rapidly there was a growing need
for more audiologic care for the pediatric population.
Did it work? Was the research convincing? The question I will answer here is did the authors
do an adequate job of laying out guidelines that any audiologist could follow? The answer is
yes. An audiologist should be able to pick up this article and have a nice framework from which
to begin infant assessment.
Key pieces to this piece of work:
The committee recognized that audiologic services and early intervention “must bridge”
UNHS programs and early intervention programs.
Other stakeholders may benefit from this publication do to the nature of multidisciplinary
teams.
A family-centered and culturally sensitive approach should be taken that advocates
family involvement.
Understanding that the ultimate goal of assessment is to define the type, degree, and
configuration of the hearing loss.
More than one test must be done to adequately address the issues of fluctuating and
progressive losses.
Forming good relationships with parents at the onset is of great importance. Family
involvement to the greatest extent possible is necessary.
Prolonged delays between assessments should be avoided.
Care was taken to define all key terms.
Assessment tools are to be neuro-developmentally appropriate and functional
implications are to be considered.
The follows were considered at each age level: case history, otoscopy, behavioral
assessment, physiologic assessment, development screening and functional auditory
assessment.
Levels included: birth to 4 months, 5 to 24 months, and 25 to 60 months.
Veracity of the data: I felt that this information was laid out in an easy to understand manner
and that the committee backed up their claims with empirical evidence for their guidelines. Each
age group was formatted nicely with suggestions for which test(s) would yield best outcomes for
these children. As the children are identified at a variety of ages the specify numbers change for
thresholds and norms.
Resulting Questions and Insights:
I would use this information to help parents understand the testing that will be taking
place with their child.
It may also be helpful in communicating the need for additional testing on a child if more
information or data is needs to help determine intervention needs.