A Systematic Review of Audiology Terminology
Open accessAbstract
The present report provides an overview of terminology studies in audiology including topics and study characteristics, as well as categorizing the main issues. The goals are to improve the understanding of the current issues for terminology in audiology and to provide some basic information that will be useful to develop an international standard. Search procedures were completed over two phases. Phase 1 included a systematic electronic searches using MEDLINE (PubMed), Excerpta Medica Database, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and International Organization for Standardization with keywords related to terminology of audiology. The studies were initially identified according to the titles of 2921 publications following careful abstract examination. Of these, whole texts of 16 publications were retrieved. Five papers met the inclusion criteria were further investigated. In phase 2, a manual search was conducted to collect additional publications with keywords related to terminology project in audiology. A total of 16 papers were found. The essential terminology issues classified included 'appropriateness,' 'classification/framework,' 'inconsistency of terminology,' 'multilingual and international aspects,' and 'service quality/delivery including communication and accessibility.' This was indicative of the paucity of terminology research in audiology, despite recurring terminology issues. Establishment of standardized terminology in audiology may minimize current challenging terminology issues by improving appropriateness and consistency of terminology as well as communication among relevant stakeholders at national and international levels.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Kähäri, K., Zachau, G., Eklöf, M., Sandsjö, L., & Möller, C. (2003) · International Journal of Audiology · doi:10.3109/14992020309078347 · Cited by 127 · see citing works
Non-organic hearing loss redefined: understanding, categorizing and managing non-organic behaviour
Austen, S., & Lynch, C. (2004) · International Journal of Audiology · doi:10.1080/14992020400050057 · Cited by 57
Simeonsson, R. (2003) · International Journal of Audiology · doi:10.3109/14992020309074618 · Cited by 48
Meaning and purpose: A conceptual model for speech pathology terminology
Walsh, R. (2005) · International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology · doi:10.1080/14417040500125285 · Cited by 36 · see citing works
A response to eight views on terminology: Is it possible to tame the wild beast of inconsistency
Walsh, R. (2005) · doi:10.1080/14417040500125400 · Cited by 12
Classroom Acoustics: What Possibly Could Be New?
Nelson, P. B., & Blaeser, S. B. (2010) · doi:10.1044/leader.ftr2.15112010.16 · Cited by 9
Definitions of Types of Hearing Impairment: A Discussion Paper
Neumann, K., & Stephens, D. (2010) · Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica · doi:10.1159/000316412 · Cited by 8
Terminology in speech pathology: Old problem, new solutions
Schindler, A. (2005) · doi:10.1080/14417040500125327 · Cited by 6
Health sciences descriptors in the brazilian speech-language and hearing science.
Campanatti-Ostiz, H., & de Andrade, C. D. (2010) · Pró-Fono · doi:10.1590/s0104-56872010000400006 · Cited by 5
Communication outcomes in audiologic reporting.
Ramachandran, V., Lewis, J. D., Mosstaghimi-Tehrani, M., Stach, B., & Yaremchuk, K. (2011) · Journal of american academy of audiology · doi:10.3766/jaaa.22.4.6 · Cited by 4
Clarifying Our Terminology: Moving the Discipline Forward by Defining Terms and Sharing Data
Mullen, R. C. (2010) · doi:10.1044/leader.ftr3.15122010.16 · Cited by 4
Terminology and conception of the profession
Kjaer, B. (2005) · doi:10.1080/14417040500125376 · Cited by 4
Hearing Loss Terminology Should Be Evidence Based: A Reply to Clark and Martin (2014).
Wilson, R., & Margolis, R. (2015) · Journal of american academy of audiology · doi:10.3766/jaaa.15003 · Cited by 3
Bain, A. (2005) · International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology · doi:10.1080/14417040500125350 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Davis, K. (2015) · Electric and Hybrid Vehicle Technology International · doi:10.12968/pnur.2015.26.8.369 · Cited by 1
Time for a change: a note on hearing loss terminology.
Clark, J., & Martin, F. N. (2014) · Journal of american academy of audiology · doi:10.3766/jaaa.25.10.11 · Cited by 1
Flagged first, then by citations
14 of the 30 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- [16]Kähärit K Zachau G Eklöf M Sandsjö L Möller C Assessment of hearing and hearing disorders in rock/jazz musicians Int J Audiol 2003 42 279 288 12916701
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A Taxonomy of Australian and New Zealand Paramedic Clinical Roles
Wilkinson-Stokes, M. (2021) · Australasian Journal of Paramedicine · doi:10.33151/ajp.18.880 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
“This article is based on the assumption that intranational and international consistency in terminology is beneficial – a principle widely adopted in many other areas of medicine (15-23).”
BackgroundWang, B., Gould, R. L., Kumar, P., Pikett, L., Thompson, B., Gonzalez, S. C., & Bamiou, D.-E. (2022) · American Journal of Audiology · doi:10.1044/2022_aja-21-00162 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
Yousefi, J., Raeisi, Z., Saeedi, M., Hasanalifard, M., Hosini, S. M., & Abolghasemi, R. (2023) · International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology · doi:10.1016/j.ijporl.2023.111498 · Cited by 2
Hall, S. M., Greenhalgh, B., Litster, K., Anderson, T., Rencher, S., & Mitchell, H. (2026) · Frontiers in Digital Health · doi:10.3389/fdgth.2026.1864883
“Hearing loss and hearing impaired were also included because these terms remain common in app descriptions, clinical language, and mainstream metadata and queries (23).”
Mimra, T., Augustýnek, M., & Klein, L. (2025) · Frontiers in Medicine · doi:10.3389/fmed.2025.1646364
A Study of Consistency in Standardized Terms Related to Audiology
Oh, S., & Lee, J. (2018) · Audiology and Speech Research · doi:10.21848/asr.2018.14.3.215
“In recent years, global markets for audiology have increased; however, a paucity of audiology terms has been standardized and uniformity in audiology terminology has not yet been achieved, with challenging issues and a lack of professional awareness remaining as obstacles (Oh & Lee, 2016).”
BackgroundSelf-citation
- Authors
- Oh, S. H., & Lee, J.
- Affiliations
- Hallym University of Graduate Studies (KR)
- Corresponding author
- Lee, Junghak
- ORCID
- Oh, Soo Hee
- Venue
- Journal of Audiology and Otology
- Publisher
- The Korean Audiological Society
- Published
- 2016-09-20
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 109-113
- ISSN
- 2384-1621 (ISSN-L)
- 2384-1710
- PMC
- PMC5020571
- OpenAlex
- W2520730442
- Cited by
- 7
- References
- 30
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2018: 1
- FWCI
- 0.61
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of Audiology & Otology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy (10053685)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › linguistics and terminology studies
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Anatomy › Medical and Biological Sciences
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Medical Coding and Health Information
- Keywords
- terminology standardization, international standardization, terminology consistency, multilingual terminology, service quality
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
