Audiologists' Desk Reference
tapeworm at net2.intserv.com
Wed Jan 1 21:21:16 EST 1997
John Carter <Ear at gnn.com> wrote in article <5acd82$i27 at news-c1.gnn.com>...
> This is a great resource for informatiom, and well worth the cost.
> What do you think?
Re: Roeser's Audiology desk reference:
Not bad. I'm requiring it for my Instrumentation in Audiology class, but
only because they already have Katz.
Roeser isn't perfect though. My complaints:
1. The immittance section only discusses measurements from an "impedance
bridge" view, discussing change in compliance units, etc. Almost everyone
now uses immittance meters which measure in absolute values. Roeser makes
no mention of what are the accepted norms for static compliance, etc. using
Also there is no mention of the use of higher-frequency probe tones, or the
use of the Y, B, and G tympanograms. These measurements are useful and
largely ignored by many audiologists.
2. This complaint isn't so much against Roeser as it is against all texts.
Simple questions such as "at what DBSL should I test speech discrimination
using X word list" and "at what frequencies and intensities should I test
tone decay" are unanswered.
To me, these are not minor points. My two cents' worth.
David Weesner, MA, CCC/A, F-AAA, (should I add E-I-E-I-O?)
More information about the Audiolog