This study explores the connection between hearing impairment, workplace (social, performance, and employer) stressors, and self-efficacy beliefs. The aim was to compute the statistical significance, direction, and strength between specific stressors and self-efficacy beliefs to see how individuals manage workplace stress overall. In addition, the literature review and a qualitative analysis of open-ended responses from six participants were examined to determine effective coping mechanisms. Descriptive quantitative analysis, frequency charts, t-tests, correlational matrices, and ANOVAs were used to calculate relationships between demographics, stress, and self-efficacy ratings. The results show that self-efficacy and stress are negatively correlated and that self-efficacy and coping techniques are positively correlated. In addition, positive work experiences are correlated with lower stress and higher self-efficacy. Amongst workplace stressors, social stress outranks performance and employer stressors. The opposite trend shows in workplace self-efficacy where performance and employer self-efficacy beliefs are greater than social self-efficacy. Hearing loss level and communication style (e.g., speech, lip reading, sign language) were two important demographic factors in determining stress and self-efficacy levels. Effective coping mechanisms that participants reported included mindfulness, and breaks, whereas ineffective coping included avoidance coping.

The purpose of the present study was to determine if an automated speech perception task yields results that are equivalent to a word recognition test used in audiometric evaluations. This was done by testing 51 normally hearing adults using a traditional word recognition task (NU-6) and an automated Non-Word Detection task. Stimuli for each task were presented in quiet as well as in six signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) increasing in 3 dB increments (+0 dB, +3 dB, +6 dB, +9 dB, + 12 dB, +15 dB). A two one-sided test procedure (TOST) was used to determine equivalency of the two tests. This approach required the performance for both tasks to be arcsine transformed and converted to z-scores in order to calculate the difference in scores across listening conditions. These values were then compared to a predetermined criterion to establish if equivalency exists. It was expected that the TOST procedure would reveal equivalency between the traditional word recognition task and the automated Non-Word Detection Task. The results confirmed that the two tasks differed by no more than 2 test items in any of the listening conditions. Overall, the results indicate that the automated Non-Word Detection task could be used in addition to, or in place of, traditional word recognition tests. In addition, the features of an automated test such as the Non-Word Detection task offer additional benefits including rapid administration, accurate scoring, and supplemental performance data (e.g., error analyses) beyond those obtained in traditional speech perception measures.