Response to Podwall Dr. Podwall’s views do not appear to differ very dramatically from those expressed in our article. We would like, nonetheless, to respond briefly to two of his points. The term Hearing Instrument Specialists was used for three reasons: (1) it differentiates dispensers who are audiologists from those who are nonaudiologists, ... Letter to the Editor
Letter to the Editor  |   November 01, 1994
Response to Podwall
 
Author Notes
Article Information
Hearing & Speech Perception / Hearing Disorders / Hearing Aids, Cochlear Implants & Assistive Technology / Audiologic / Aural Rehabilitation / Professional Issues & Training / Regulatory, Legislative & Advocacy / Letters to the Editor
Letter to the Editor   |   November 01, 1994
Response to Podwall
American Journal of Audiology, November 1994, Vol. 3, 80. doi:10.1044/1059-0889.0303.80
 
American Journal of Audiology, November 1994, Vol. 3, 80. doi:10.1044/1059-0889.0303.80
Dr. Podwall’s views do not appear to differ very dramatically from those expressed in our article. We would like, nonetheless, to respond briefly to two of his points.
The term Hearing Instrument Specialists was used for three reasons: (1) it differentiates dispensers who are audiologists from those who are nonaudiologists, (2) it is the preferred designation of the International Hearing Society (IHS) for nonaudiologist dispensers, and (3) it is a term widely used in the state statutes to refer to the licensing of nondispensing audiologists. If Dr. Podwall or others wish to refer to instrument specialists as hearing aid dealers, that is their prerogative.
First Page Preview
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview ×
View Large
Order a Subscription
Pay Per View
Entire American Journal of Audiology content & archive
24-hour access
This Article
24-hour access