Assessing Student Preparedness in Ves1bular Assessment Introduction & Purpose
Deborah Grall, AuD University of Wisconsin-­‐Stevens Point There has been significant discussion about standardiza3on in AuD programs and the importance of research ac3vity related to the scholarship of instruc3on in audiology (Mormer, Palmer, Messick & Jorgensen, 2013; Ng, 2013). AuD programs are built with combined clinical and classroom components. It is understood that these elements need to be integrated in order for students to have a comprehensive educa3onal experience. To do this, it is necessary to determine the content areas that need to be covered prior to the clinical component, and then emphasize those areas in the classroom to ensure posi3ve student experiences in the clinical seNng. Once these necessary content areas have been determined and priori3zed, we can then evaluate how well-­‐prepared our students are. Ves3bular assessment and interpreta3on is an integral part of an audiologist’s scope of prac3ce and it is necessary to ensure that well-­‐trained professionals conduct these assessments. A literature review revealed limited informa3on available regarding the effec3veness of training AuD students for ves3bular assessment. Therefore, a pilot survey was undertaken to assess current clinicians’ percep3ons of the level of preparedness of students for administra3on and interpreta3on of ves3bular assessments. Methods
Par1cipants A survey was administered using SelectSurvey.Net. A link to the survey was made accessible through three state audiology associa3ons in the Midwest, as well as e-­‐mailed to audiologists who supervised AuD students from the University of Wisconsin–Madison/Stevens Point Joint AuD Program over the past two years. No iden3fying informa3on was obtained with the survey. Results
Prac3cing audiologists who have supervised students in the last two years (n = 13) were asked to rank the preparedness of AuD students. The student was knowledgeable about the anatomy and physiology of the ENG/VNG response. The student was prepared to perform Canalith reposi1oning. Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Disagree Disagree Disagree Neutral Neutral Neutral Agree Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Agree Strongly Agree 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Strongly Agree 0 10 30 Importance of ENG/VNG Course Content
Ranking of Importance of ENG/VNG Course Content Those who had supervised AuD students over the past two years were then asked to indicate how well prepared those students were in the same areas using the rankings of strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree or strongly disagree. Box is the 1st-­‐3rd Quar3le range based on mode Line extends to minimum and maximum Circles – outliers greater than the first quar3le minus 1.5 3mes the interquar3le range 40 50 60 0 5 % of responders Prac3cing audiologists (n = 26) were also asked to rank the importance of covering the content areas below from most important to least important. The respondents were asked to rank the following categories in order of importance for covering in an AuD program: •  ENG/VNG test protocols •  ENG/VNG test interpreta3on •  anatomy and physiology of the ENG/VNG response •  making appropriate referrals •  obtaining a case history •  canalith reposi3oning •  background knowledge of ves3bular disorders. Acknowledgements: 20 % of responders Procedures •  Elizabeth Gansen, BS & Rachel Craig, BS •  UWSP Center for Communica1ve Disorders, and all the par1cipants! The student was prepared to interpret an ENG/VNG test. 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 % of responders Conclusions & Discussion
Results indicated significant variability in perceived importance of content areas. Anatomy and physiology of the ENG/VNG was ranked most important and canalith reposi3oning was least important (N=26). When considering student preparedness within the areas deemed most and least important (N=13), the majority of responders who have supervised fourth year AuD students reported that students were prepared regarding the anatomy and physiology of the ENG/VNG response (67%), and that students were not prepared to perform canalith reposi3oning (56%). Results also showed that the majority of supervisors felt neutral regarding students’ preparedness in interpre3ng ENG/VNG tes3ng (55.56%) which indicates an area that could need improvement. Future research should extend the geographic area of the survey and include other areas of ves3bular assessment to develop a more comprehensive picture. References Mormer, E., Palmer, C., Messick, C., & Jorgensen, L. (2013). An evidence-­‐based guide to clinical instruc3on in audiology. J Am Acad Audiol, 24(5), 393-­‐406. Ng, S. (2013). Theory and research in audiology educa3on: understanding and represen3ng complexity through informed methodological decisions. J Am Acad Audiol, 24(5), 344-­‐353