Practical Considerations of Real-Ear-to-Coupler Difference Measures in Infants The purpose of this study was to investigate some of the practical issues surrounding the use of the real-ear-to-coupler difference (RECD) measure in infants in clinical settings. Twenty-two newborns were seen once a month during their first year of life for the purpose of obtaining RECD measurements. Two methods for ... Research Article
Research Article  |   June 01, 2001
Practical Considerations of Real-Ear-to-Coupler Difference Measures in Infants
 
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Anne Marie Tharpe
    Vanderbilt Bill Wilkerson Center for Otolaryngology and Communication Sciences, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN
  • Douglas Sladen
    Vanderbilt Bill Wilkerson Center for Otolaryngology and Communication Sciences, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN
  • Holly M. Huta
    Vanderbilt Bill Wilkerson Center for Otolaryngology and Communication Sciences, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN
  • Ann McKinley Rothpletz
    Vanderbilt Bill Wilkerson Center for Otolaryngology and Communication Sciences, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN
Article Information
Hearing & Speech Perception / Acoustics / Research Issues, Methods & Evidence-Based Practice / Research Articles
Research Article   |   June 01, 2001
Practical Considerations of Real-Ear-to-Coupler Difference Measures in Infants
American Journal of Audiology, June 2001, Vol. 10, 41-49. doi:10.1044/1059-0889(2000/006)
History: Received March 6, 2001 , Accepted June 2, 2001
 
American Journal of Audiology, June 2001, Vol. 10, 41-49. doi:10.1044/1059-0889(2000/006)
History: Received March 6, 2001; Accepted June 2, 2001

The purpose of this study was to investigate some of the practical issues surrounding the use of the real-ear-to-coupler difference (RECD) measure in infants in clinical settings. Twenty-two newborns were seen once a month during their first year of life for the purpose of obtaining RECD measurements. Two methods for obtaining the RECD were examined: the commonly used constant insertion depth method and the acoustic method. Differences between the results of the two methods were examined as well as test-retest reliability for each. Findings suggest that no compelling evidence exists to support the use of one of these methods over the other. Use of either method resulted in good test-retest reliability in the midfrequency range of the RECD, with poorer reliability on both ends of the frequency spectrum. Test-retest reliability decreased with increasing age for both methods. In addition, reliability of between-ear RECD values was examined. Between-ear measurements were most reliable in the midfrequency range, and reliability decreased slightly with increasing age.

Order a Subscription
Pay Per View
Entire American Journal of Audiology content & archive
24-hour access
This Article
24-hour access