Subscribe to RSS
DOI: 10.3766/jaaa.18054
Skill Transference of a Probe-Tube Placement Training Simulator
Publication History
03 August 2018
Publication Date:
25 May 2020 (online)
Abstract
Background:
Probe-tube placement is a necessary step in hearing aid verification which needs ample hands-on experience and confidence before performing in clinic. To improve the methods of training in probe-tube placement, a manikin-based training simulator was developed consisting of a 3D-printed head, a flexible silicone ear, and a mounted optical tracking system. The system is designed to provide feedback to the user on the depth and orientation of the probe tube, and the time required to finish the task. Although a previous validation study was performed to determine its realism and teachability with experts, further validation is required before implementation into educational settings.
Purpose:
This study aimed to examine the skill transference of a newly updated probe-tube placement training simulator to determine if skills learned on this simulator successfully translate to clinical scenarios.
Research Design:
All participants underwent a pretest in which they were evaluated while performing a probe-tube placement and real-ear-to-coupler difference (RECD) measurement on a volunteer. Participants were randomized into one of two groups: the simulator group or the control group. During a two-week training period, all participants practiced their probe-tube placement according to their randomly assigned group. After two weeks, each participant completed a probe-tube placement on the same volunteer as a posttest scenario.
Study Sample:
Twenty-five novice graduate-level student clinicians.
Data Collection and Analysis:
Participants completed a self-efficacy questionnaire and an expert observer completed a questionnaire evaluating each participant’s performance during the pre- and posttest sessions. RECD measurements were taken after placing the probe tube and foam tip in the volunteer’s ear. Questionnaire results were analyzed through nonparametric t-tests and analysis of variance, whereas RECD results were analyzed using a nonlinear mixed model method.
Results:
Results suggested students in the simulator group were less likely to contact the tympanic membrane when placing a probe tube, appeared more confident, and had better use of the occluding foam tip, resulting in more improved RECD measurements.
Conclusions:
The improved outcomes for trainees in the simulator group suggest that supplementing traditional training with the simulator provides useful benefits for the trainees, thereby encouraging its usage and implementation in educational settings.
Key Words
education - hearing aids - probe-tube placement - real ear - simulation - skill transference - trainingFunding for this project was provided through an Ontario Graduate Scholarship (2016/2017) through a Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) Canadian Graduate Scholarship-Masters (CGSM) and through an NSERC Discovery Grant.
-
REFERENCES
- Aazh H, Moore BCJ. 2007; The value of routine real ear measurement of the gain of digital hearing aids. J Am Acad Audiol 18: 653-664
- Aazh H, Moore BCJ, Prasher D. 2012; The accuracy of matching target insertion gains with open-fit hearing aids. Am J Audiol 21: 175-180
- Abrams HB, Chisolm TH, McManus M, McArdle R. 2012; Initial-fit approach versus verified prescription: comparing self-perceived hearing aid benefit. J Am Acad Audiol 23: 768-778
- Amlani AM, Pumford J, Gessling E. 2016 Improving patient perception of clinical services through real-ear measurements. Hear Rev. http://www.hearingreview.com/2016/11/improving-patient-perception-clinical-services-real-ear-measurements/ . Accessed June 14, 2018.
- Amlani AM, Pumford J, Gessling E. 2017 Real-ear measurement and its impact on aided audibility and patient loyalty. Hear Rev. http://www.hearingreview.com/2017/09/real-ear-measurement-impact-aided-audibility-patient-loyalty/ . Accessed June 14, 2018.
- Anderson MC, Arehart KH, Souza PE. 2018; Survey of current practice in the fitting and fine-tuning of common signal-processing features in hearing aids for adults. J Am Acad Audiol 29: 118-124
- Bagatto MP, Seewald RC, Scollie SD, Tharpe AM. 2006; Evaluation of a probe-tube insertion technique for measuring the real-ear-to-coupler difference (RECD) in young infants. J Am Acad Audiol 17: 573-581
- Bamford J, Beresford D, Mencher G, DeVoe S, Owen V, Davis A. 2001. Provision and fitting of new technology hearing aids: implications from a survey of some “good practice services” in UK and USA. In:. In: Seewald RC, Gravel JS. A Sound Foundation through Early Amplification: Proceedings of an International Conference. Stafa, Switzerland: Phonak AG; 213e219
- British Society of Audiology (BSA) 2007; Guidance on the use of real ear measurement to verify the fitting of digital signal processing hearing aids. Br Soc Audiol 1: 1-20
- Brown DK. 2017; Simulation before clinical practice: the educational advantages. Audiology Today 29: 16-24
- Caldwell M, Souza PE, Tremblay KL. 2006; Effect of probe tube insertion depth on spectral measures of speech. Trends Amplif 10: 145-154
- College of Audiologists and Speech-Language Pathologists of Ontario (CASLPO) 2016 Practice standards for the provision of hearing aid services by audiologists. Toronto, ON: CASLPO. http://www.caslpo.com/sites/default/uploads/files/PS_EN_Practice_Standards_for_the_Provision_of_Hearing_Aid_Services_By_Audiologists.pdf
- Consumer Reports 2009. Hearing Aid Shoppers Pay High Prices, Get Mediocre Fittings. Consumer Reports. New York, NY: Consumers Union.; https://www.consumerreports.org/media-room/press-releases/2009/06/hearing-aid-shoppers-pay-high-prices-get-mediocre-fittings-/
- Dawe SR, Pena GN, Windsor JA, Broeders JA, Cregan PC, Hewett PJ, Maddern GJ. 2014; Systematic review of skills transfer after surgical simulation-based training. Br J Surg 101: 1063-1076
- Dirks DD, Ahlstrom JB, Eisenberg LS. 1996; Comparison of probe insertion methods on estimates of ear canal SPL. J Am Acad Audiol 7: 31-38
- Dirks DD, Kincaid GE. 1987; Basic acoustic considerations of ear canal probe measurements. Ear Hear 8: 60S-67S
- Gaba DM. 2004; The future vision of simulation in health care. Qual Saf Heal Care 13: 2-10
- Huang C, Cheng H, Bureau Y, Agrawal SK, Ladak HM. 2015; Face and content validity of a virtual-reality simulator for myringotomy with tube placement. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 44: 1-8
- ISO 2001. ISO 12124:2001 - Acoustics- Procedures for the Measurement of Real-Ear Acoustical Characteristics of Hearing Aids. Geneva, Switzerland: ISO;
- Issenberg SB, McGaghie WC, Hart IR, Mayer JW, Felner JM, Petrusa ER, Waugh RA, Brown DD, Safford RR, Gessner IH, Gordon DL, Ewy GA. 1999; Simulation technology for health care professional skills training and assessment. JAMA 282: 861
- Jorgensen LE. 2016; Verification and validation of hearing aids: opportunity not an obstacle. J Otol 11: 57-62
- Koch RW, Moodie S, Folkeard P, Scollie S, Janeteas C, Agrawal SK, Ladak HM. 2018; Face and content validity of a probe tube placement training simulator. J Am Acad Audiol 30 (03) 227-234
- Kunkler K. 2006; The role of medical simulation: an overview. Int J Med Robot Comput Assist Surg 2: 203-210
- Laschinger S, Medves J, Pulling C, McGraw DR, Waytuck B, Harrison MB, Gambeta K. 2008; Effectiveness of simulation on health profession students’ knowledge, skills, confidence and satisfaction. Int J Evid Based Healthc 6: 278-302
- Leavitt R, Bentler R, Flexer C. 2017; Hearing aid programming practices in Oregon: fitting errors and real ear measurements. The Hearing Rev 24: 30-33
- Leavitt RJ, Flexer C. 2012; The importance of audibility in successful amplification of hearing loss. Hear Rev 19 (13) 20e23
- McCreery RW, Bentler RA, Roush PA. 2013; Characteristics of hearing aid fittings in infants and young children. Ear Hear 34: 701-710
- Moodie S, Rall E, Eiten L, Lindley G, Gordey D, Davidson L, Bagatto M, Scollie S. 2016; Pediatric audiology in North America: current clinical practice and how it relates to the American Academy of Audiology Pediatric Amplification Guideline. J Am Acad Audiol 27: 166-187
- Moodie S, Pietrobon J, Rall E, Lindley G, Eiten L, Gordey D, Davidson L, Moodie KS, Bagatto M, Haluschak MM, Folkeard P, Scollie S. 2016; Using the real-ear-to-coupler difference within the American Academy of Audiology Pediatric Amplification Guideline: protocols for applying and predicting earmold RECDs. J Am Acad Audiol 27: 264-275
- Mueller HG. 2005; Probe-mic measures: hearing aid fitting’s most neglected element. Hear J 58: 1-6
- Mueller HG, Picou E. 2010; Survey examines popularity of real-ear probe-microphone measures. Hear J 63: 27-32
- OpenCV Team 2018 OpenCV Homepage. https://opencv.org/ . Accessed July 4, 2018.
- Palmer CV. 1998; Curriculum for graduate courses in amplification. Trends Amplif 3: 6-44
- Pumford J, Sinclair S. 2001 Real-ear measurement: basic terminology and procedures. Audiol Online. http://www.audiologyonline.com/articles/real-ear-measurement-basic-terminology-1229 . Accessed April 24, 2018.
- Torkington J, Smith SGT, Rees BI, Darzi A. 2001; Skill transfer from virtual reality to a real laparoscopic task. Surg Endosc 15: 1076-1079
- Vaisberg JM, Macpherson EA, Scollie SD. 2016; Extended bandwidth real-ear measurement accuracy and repeatability to 10 kHz. Int J Audiol 55: 1-7
- Valente M. 2006 Guideline for Audiologic Management of the Adult Patient. Audiol Online. https://www.audiologyonline.com/articles/guideline-for-audiologic-management-adult-966 . Accessed June 10, 2018.
- Valente M, Odeing K, Brockmeyer A, Smith S, Kallogjeri D. 2017; Differences in word and phoneme recognition in quiet, sentence recognition in noise, and subjective outcomes between manufacturer first-fit and hearing aids programmed to NAL-NL2 using real-ear measures. J Am Acad Audiol 29: 706-721
- Wang AT, Erwin PJ, Hamstra SJ. 2011; Technology-enhanced simulation. J Am Med Assoc 306: 978-988