Evaluation of the NAL-NL1 and the DSL v.4.1 prescriptions for children

Paired-comparison intelligibility judgments and functional performance ratings

Teresa Y C Ching, Susan D. Scollie, Harvey Dillon, Richard Seewald, Louise Britton, Jane Steinberg, Megan Gilliver, Katrina A. King

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

13 Citations (Scopus)


This paper reports intelligibility judgments and real-life functional performance of 48 children in a double-blind, cross-over trial comparing the NAL-NL1 and the DSL v.4.1 prescriptions. Intelligibility judgments were obtained by using a paired-comparisons procedure with audiovisual stimuli. Functional performance of children during two eight-week periods, each with hearing aids adjusted to one prescription, was assessed by parents and teachers (PEACH and TEACH) and by children's self reports (SELF). Consistently across reports, performance was significantly better in quiet than in noise. On average, better performance in noise (a higher Noise subscale score) was associated with NAL-NL1 than with DSL v.4.1, both for the PEACH and the SELF. This difference was significant for the SELF in Australia. Intelligibility judgments revealed preferences that were equally split between prescriptions in both countries, on average. In the Australian sample, intelligibility judgments agreed with the questionnaire ratings and with parents' ratings. An increase in preference for NAL was significantly associated with lesser hearing loss. The effect was not significant in the Canadian sample.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)S35-S48
Number of pages14
JournalInternational Journal of Audiology
Issue numberSUPPL. 1
Publication statusPublished - 2010
Externally publishedYes


  • Children
  • DSL
  • Functional performance
  • Hearing-aid evaluation
  • Intelligibility judgments
  • NAL
  • Parents' reports

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Evaluation of the NAL-NL1 and the DSL v.4.1 prescriptions for children: Paired-comparison intelligibility judgments and functional performance ratings'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this