A Systematic Review of Ethics Knowledge in Audiology (1980–2010) Purpose The purpose of this research was to apply multiple perspectives as part of a systematic review to analyze literature regarding ethics in audiology. Audiologists are particularly vulnerable to the changing requirements of the discipline that compel them to straddle both professional obligations and business principles, creating a hybrid professional. ... Review Article
Review Article  |   June 01, 2014
A Systematic Review of Ethics Knowledge in Audiology (1980–2010)
 
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Alida Maryna Naudé
    Centre for Augmentative and Alternative Communication, University of Pretoria, South Africa
  • Juan Bornman
    Centre for Augmentative and Alternative Communication, University of Pretoria, South Africa
  • Disclosure: The authors have declared that no competing interests existed at the time of publication.
    Disclosure: The authors have declared that no competing interests existed at the time of publication.×
  • Correspondence to Alida Maryna Naudé: alida@eaglecad.co.za
  • Editor: Larry Humes
    Editor: Larry Humes×
Article Information
Hearing Disorders / Professional Issues & Training / Review Articles
Review Article   |   June 01, 2014
A Systematic Review of Ethics Knowledge in Audiology (1980–2010)
American Journal of Audiology, June 2014, Vol. 23, 151-157. doi:10.1044/2014_AJA-13-0057
History: Received October 10, 2013 , Revised January 20, 2014 , Accepted February 21, 2014
 
American Journal of Audiology, June 2014, Vol. 23, 151-157. doi:10.1044/2014_AJA-13-0057
History: Received October 10, 2013; Revised January 20, 2014; Accepted February 21, 2014
Web of Science® Times Cited: 2

Purpose The purpose of this research was to apply multiple perspectives as part of a systematic review to analyze literature regarding ethics in audiology. Audiologists are particularly vulnerable to the changing requirements of the discipline that compel them to straddle both professional obligations and business principles, creating a hybrid professional.

Method The authors used a 2-phase mixed-method approach to analyze publications. Publications were sorted into categories, namely, ethics approach, author, decade, role of the audiologist, component of morality, and common themes. The sample consisted of peer-reviewed articles cited in MEDLINE, CINAHL, ERIC, MasterFILE Premier, E-Journals, Africa-Wide Information, and Academic Search Premier electronic databases and non-peer-reviewed articles in Seminars in Hearing.

Results The publications were predominantly philosophical, focused on the rehabilitative role of the audiologist, and addressed the moral judgment component of moral behavior.

Conclusions Despite the fact that knowledge of ethics grew between 1980 and 2010, this retrospective analysis identified gaps in current knowledge. Research is needed to address the unique ethical problems commonly encountered in all 8 roles of the audiologist; patient perspectives on ethics; ethical approaches; factors affecting moral judgment, sensitivity, motivation, and courage; and cultural dimensions of ethical practice in audiology.

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