Letter to the Editor In this excellent article by Humes and Diefendorf, the emphasis placed on the use of technicians in our field was especially noteworthy. I expressed a similar need in a letter that appeared in the August 1992 “Dialogue” of Asha. My only suggestion is to abandon such titles as “audiological technicians” ... Letter to the Editor
Letter to the Editor  |   March 01, 1994
Letter to the Editor
 
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Edwin L. Harless
    VA Medical Center Salisbury, NC
Article Information
Hearing Disorders / Healthcare Settings / ASHA News & Member Stories / Letters to the Editor
Letter to the Editor   |   March 01, 1994
Letter to the Editor
American Journal of Audiology, March 1994, Vol. 3, 92. doi:10.1044/1059-0889.0301.92a
 
American Journal of Audiology, March 1994, Vol. 3, 92. doi:10.1044/1059-0889.0301.92a
In this excellent article by Humes and Diefendorf, the emphasis placed on the use of technicians in our field was especially noteworthy. I expressed a similar need in a letter that appeared in the August 1992 “Dialogue” of Asha. My only suggestion is to abandon such titles as “audiological technicians” (used by the authors), “audiometric technicians,” “audiometrist” (Audiology Today, 1[3]), etc. It would appear more appropriate to refer to the technician position in our field as simply “audiology technician” or “audiology tech.” This would be similar to other allied medical fields that use technicians, such as the optometry tech, dental assistant, psychology tech, pharmacy tech, dietetic tech, and others. The problem in using terminology such as “audiological technician” or “audiometric technician” is that it identifies the assistant with a specific procedure rather than simply identifying such support personnel as audiology assistants, and, in my view, opens up the possibility that such a designation might eventually lead to an autonomous group. An excellent discussion on the title to be given to trained technicians was provided by Martin Robinette in an article entitled “Audiometrists To Be Or Not To Be” (Asha, 34[9]). Robinette emphatically presented the view that “technicians…should be given a title that does not suggest they evaluate auditory function.”
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