Audiological Practice in India: An Internet-Based Survey of Audiologists

  • Vijayalakshmi EaswarEmail author
  • Sriram Boothalingam
  • Srikanth Chundu
  • Vinaya K. C. Manchaiah
  • S. Mohammed Ismail
Original Article


The field of Audiology in India has expanded exponentially in recent years. Audiologists practice in a variety of work places. However, little is known about the practice trends across these several work places. An Internet-based survey probing into Audiology practice was conducted between June and September 2012. The survey focused on four domains, namely, demography, assessment, hearing aid (HA) fitting and protocol usage. A total of 199 audiologists completed the survey. A large proportion of these audiologists were from Southern India. Majority of the respondents provide hearing assessment and HA services for children and adults. Results indicate diverse practice among respondents, even in essential procedures such as otoscopy. Although a large proportion of audiologists reported performing HA fitting in children as well as adults, less than 12 % of them performed real ear or simulated real ear verification during any HA fitting. Implications for the development of preferred practice guidelines in India have been discussed.


Audiology Audiology in developing countries India Professional practice Hearing loss Hearing aid fitting Preferred practice guidelines 



The authors would like to thank the ISHA for their assistance in distributing the survey among their members. Portions of this work were presented at the 45th Annual National Convention of the ISHA, Chennai, February 2013.


  1. 1.
    Savithri SR (1988) Speech and hearing science in ancient India—a review of Sanskrit literature. J Commun Dis 21(4):271–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Stephens D (2006) Deafness and its treatment in ancient civilizations. Audiol Med 4(2):85–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Manchaiah VKC, Reddy S, Chundu S (2009) Audiology in India. Audiol Today 21(6):38–44Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Smith AW, Mackenzie IJ (1999) WHO ear and hearing disorder survey. World Health Organization, pp 1–37Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    NSSO (2003) Disabled persons in India. National Sample Survey Organization, Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, New Delhi, 485 (58/26/1)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    DeBow A, Green WB (2000) A survey of Canadian audiological practices: pure tone and speech audiometry. J Speech Lang Pathol Audiol 24(4):153–161Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Saccone P, Steiger J (2012) Audiologists’ professional satisfaction. Am J Audiol 21(2):140–148PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tucker MA (2001) A time study of audiological practice patterns and the impact of reimbursement changes from third part payers. Graduate School Theses and Dissertations.
  9. 9.
    Wiley TL, Stoppenbach DT, Feldhake LJ, Moss KA, Thordardottir ET (1995) Audiologic practices: what is popular versus what is supported by evidence. Am J Audiol 4(1):26Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Martin FN, Armstrong TW, Champlin CA (1994) A survey of audiological practices in the United States. Am J Audiol 3(2):20Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Janota J (2010) 2010 Audiology survey: private practice. American Speech-Language-Hearing AssociationGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kochkin S, Beck DL, Christensen LA, Compton-Conley C, Fligor BJ, Kricos PB, McSpaden J, Mueller HG, Nilsson M, Northern J (2010) MarkeTrak VIII: the impact of the hearing healthcare professional on hearing aid user success. Hear Rev 17(4):12–34Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hougaard S, Ruf S (2011) EuroTrak I: a consumer survey about hearing aids in Germany, France, and the UK. Hear Rev. [Online]. Accessed 10 Feb 2011
  14. 14.
    BSA (2011) Pure-tone air-conduction and bone-conduction threshold audiometry with and without masking. British Society of Audiology, Berkshire, pp 1–31. Accessed 10 Feb 2013Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    BSA (2010) Ear examination. British Society of Audiology, Berkshire, pp 1–12. Accessed 10 Feb 2013Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    CASLPO (2000) Preferred practice guideline for the prescription of hearing aids to adults. College of Audiologists and Speech-Language Pathologists of Ontario, Toronto, pp 1–17. Accessed 10 Feb 2013Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dillon H (1999) NAL-NL1: a new procedure for fitting non-linear hearing aids. Hear J 52(4):10–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Keidser G, Dillon H, Flax M, Ching T, Brewer S (2011) The NAL-NL2 prescription procedure. Audiol Res 1(1):e24Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Seewald R, Cornelisse L, Ramji K, Sinclair S, Moodie S, Jamieson D (199) DSL v4. 1 for Windows: a software implementation of the Desired Sensation Level (DSL [i/o]) Method for fitting linear gain and wide-dynamic-range compression hearing instruments. Hearing Healthcare Research Unit, University of Western Ontario, LondonGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Scollie S, Seewald R, Cornelisse L, Moodie S, Bagatto M, Laurnagaray D, Beaulac S, Pumford J (2005) The desired sensation level multistage input/output algorithm. Trends Amplif 9(4):159–197PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Moore BCJ, Glasberg BR, Stone MS (1999) Use of a loudness model for hearing aid fitting: III. A general method for deriving initial fittings for hearing aids with multi-channel compression. Br J Audiol 33(4):241–258PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    VKC Manchaiah, S Reddy, S Chundu, SN Dutt (2010) Ear and hearing healthcare services in India. ENT Audiol News 19(5), pp 93–95Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    V Basavaraj, Hearing aid provision in developing countries: an Indian case study. In: Audiology in developing countries, no. 8, B. McPherson and R. Brouillette, Eds. Nova Science Publishers Inc., 2008, pp. 155–166Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Katz J (2009) Handbook of clinical audiology, 6(null) edn. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    L. Hood, “Auditory Neuropathy and Dys-synchrony,” in Auditory Evoked Potentials: Basic principles and clinical applications, no. 13, R. Burkard, J. Eggermont, and M. Don, Eds. Philadelphia: Lippincott WIlliams and Wilkins, 2007, pp. 1–16Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    F. Musiek and G. D. Chermack, Handbook of (Central) Auditory Processing Disorders,, vol. I. San Diego:, 2007Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    C. Jones and S. Launer, “Pediatric Hearing Instrument Fitting in 2010: The sound foundations Cuper Project,” pp. 1–40, Nov. 2010Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mueller HG, Picou EM (2010) Survey examines popularity of real-ear probe-microphone measures. Hear J 63(5):27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    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(10):768–778PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Mueller G, Hawkins DB, Northern J (1992) Probe microphone measurements: hearing aid selection and assessment. Singular Publishing Group, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Valente M, Abrams H, Benson D, Chisolm T, Citron D, Hampton D, Loavenbruck A, Ricketts T, Solodar H, Sweetow R (2006) Guidelines for the audiologic management of adult hearing impairment. Audiol Today 18(5):32–37Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Aazh H, Moore BCJ (2007) The value of routine real ear measurement of the gain of digital hearing aids. J Am Acad Audiol 18(8):653–664PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Saunders GH, Morgan DE (2003) Impact on hearing aid targets of measuring thresholds in dB HL versus dB SPL. Int J Audiol 42(6):319–326PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association of Otolaryngologists of India 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vijayalakshmi Easwar
    • 1
    • 6
    Email author
  • Sriram Boothalingam
    • 1
    • 6
  • Srikanth Chundu
    • 2
    • 6
  • Vinaya K. C. Manchaiah
    • 3
    • 4
    • 6
  • S. Mohammed Ismail
    • 5
    • 6
  1. 1.Faculty of Health Sciences, National Centre for AudiologyThe University of Western OntarioLondonCanada
  2. 2.South of England Cochlear Implant Centre, Institute of Sound and Vibration ResearchUniversity of SouthamptonSouthamptonUK
  3. 3.Department of Vision and Hearing SciencesAnglia Ruskin UniversityCambridgeUK
  4. 4.Department of Behavioral Science and Learning, Linnaeus Centre HEAD, The Swedish Institute for Disability ResearchLinköping UniversityLinköpingSweden
  5. 5.Amplifon IndiaBangaloreIndia
  6. 6.Audiology India, Registered Non-government OrganizationMysoreIndia

Personalised recommendations