Introduction
This is a reflective account on the task undertaken by a group of six individuals under the banner GROUP C. The task involved the Systematic Review comparing the accuracy of Finger Rub Tests and Speech-in-Noise Tests for the screening of hearing loss in adults in primary care. It was an attempt to complete an assignment under the Audio-vestibular Assessment Strategy Assignment within the pursuit of completion of a master’s degree program in audiology.
From the review of this paper, as a student, I was able to realize that the finger-rub (21 cm) test validated by Ullhman et al (1989) had weak statistical evidence supporting its validity as a screening tool. Moreover, the fact that the Systematic analysis of study quality confirmed that the validation procedure behind this test needed to be modified so as to sustain that claim. It was also a learning experience when I realized that a combination of the CALFRAST strong 70 and the CALFRAST faint 70 might supply a screening procedure that is quick, simple, and inexpensive.
This is because, the opposing natures of these two tests balance out their weaknesses in sensitivity and specificity, and they result in a more effective screening test. The drawbacks realized in the actual method of the test do though leave doubts to the repeatability of the test amongst clinicians. I was able to realize that The Smits et al. Triplet digit test is moderately strong across all the statistical measures and appeared to have a simple and quick procedure. Its high accessibility and automation were also assets to the test as a screening tool. It was also evident to me that, the high cost of missing potentially hearing-impaired individuals and also a relatively large chance of mis-diagnosing normal hearing listeners undermines the validity of this test as a screening tool. From this review, I was able to also realize that from the studies reviewed none of the tests can be validated as screening assessments for adults. Further validation studies of both types of tests would be needed to alter these conclusions. However, time may be better spent in the development and validation of other adult hearing screening tools.
According to Biggs (1999), a mirror Reflection is an accurate duplication of what is before it. However, reflection in proficient practice returns not what it is (as like a mirror reflection), but what it might be, or an enhancement on the original. Reflective account, in this context, is not about merely viewing at myself in a mirror and recognizing what I see with no questions or evaluations. Somewhat, it is about noting what I have studied and how I can utilize that knowledge in my pursuit for completion of my masters programme on audiology. From the research we did, I got to know more on Audio-vestibular Assessment Strategy and comparison of the accuracy of Finger Rub Tests and Speech-in-Noise Tests for the screening of hearing loss in adults in primary care.
This reflective account tends to utilize the concept of reflection-on-action by Schon (1987) that is taking a step back, glancing at what has gone before and pause to consider how our actions, thoughts and experiences within that situation will affect what we choose to do later. It is a process of evaluating an experience from practice in order to explain, analyze and assess therefore informing knowledge from practice. Reflection is a constructive instrument of self-assessment and appraisal as it frequently facilitates one to recognize areas where one feel one is performing well and emphasize on areas that need perfection. In recording my feelings towards my part on the research; that is preparing the background for finger rub test and participating in data and quality analysis, results formation and conclusion, I feel that I can make it in successfully accomplishing the masters’ programme. In addition, I can recognize areas that I feel I need to discuss with my lecturer.
Personal and Professional Development
I believe that there have been three significant parts that I have benefitted from my time spent working on the paper on Audio-vestibular Assessment Strategy. These are Communication, Working with and leading others and Dealing with situations including problem solving and taking advantage of opportunities. Communication has probably been the part that has most benefitted me through the work. In order for the assignment to be done, it was required for the group to communicate frequently. In addition, some modes of data collection required communication. My confidence with dealing with people on professional and academic situation has also developed over the course.
Being able to work with others is a key feature of being a professional. This opinion has largely been shaped by my work on the project, where we were required to work as a group to complete the tasks involved. Such work has afforded me with a number of insights on what it is like to work as a team, and in my view, I feel that the composition of any team should consider what the actual project is, and how essential it is for a leader to be assigned. I was the lead in this particular assignment.
Group work
Many Groups entail a tension between its shared endeavours and attainment of the best out of individual efforts. The group as a body, though, can result to pressures, which it must determine. This group engaged people who partly knew each other and, being self-selecting, permitted us to get to know each other better during a task that had both group and individual aspects.
Using Tuck man’s five phases of group growth is practical in this case (The Centre for Service and Leadership, nd). Thus, the forming phase was smoother than might have been and engrossed less in the manner of a slow lead-in to chores. In spite of initial apprehension, it permitted for some preliminary confidence based on an incomplete knowledge of each other. We still had to be more oriented. As a result, the storming phase was sensibly dignified and business-like and therefore progressed rapidly to the Norming phase of consistency and joint leadership, aided by habitual contact between members using a series of face-to-face meetings and discussions. Concerning the next phase of performing, this was, in accurate phrases of really performing, assigned out for stylistic cohesion and consistency, so some were more in the background than others were. In the dynamic, everybody believed that they were able to add on the paper. The last stage, adjourning, was unavoidably partial because the rapports persistent throughout the course of the paper.
In addition, Meredith Belbin's Team Role Theory about efficient group working from internal relationships is helpful concerning who did what in accordance to their traits, which is, a team member's attribute performance when interrelating and serving the group altogether (Cartwright et al., 1993). These are the near introverts of Co-ordinator, Shaper and Plant and the towards extroverts of Resource investigator, Implementer ,Team worker, Completer finisher, Monitor evaluator and Specialist (Cartwright et al., 1993; Banffshire Partnership, nd; Chapman, 2005). The Co-ordinator involve people oriented team goals based leader, but not creative. The Shaper is a highly motivated energetic person moulding others to the task but can provoke. The Plant involves big ideas intelligent specialists but weak communicators. The Resource investigator entails explorer and developer of others' ideas through contacts, if easily bored with time. The Implementer entails tolerant, realistic, and low anxiety assisting task-oriented person, but they are inflexible. The Team worker includes people oriented diplomat encouraging helpful interventions, but are often indecisive). The Completer finisher entails quiet steady detailed person meeting specifications, but worries and does not delegate. The Monitor evaluator contain shrewd and rational thinker and able to make decisions, however they do not inspire others and Specialist, which involve individualist, dedicated provider of rare skills, a profession person over an organisation person except they offer narrow contributions. (Cartwright et al., 1993; Banffshire Partnership; Chapman, 2005).
Even though there are nine forms, not all need to be available for the configuration of an efficient team, provided there is counterbalance. This particular team's roles were allocated from this criteria and individual team members selected exact areas that they felt they were best matched to embark on, with the harmony of the rest of the team. Personally, I was involved in the preparation of the background for finger rub test.
These roles are typologies, obtained from research but idealised as by Max Weber. The entities may have attributes of one or more kind. Debatably, this group comprise six members with six attributes: Resource Investigator, Implementer, Monitor evaluator, Co-ordinator, Specialist, and Completer finisher. Everyone was something of an Implementer since we were all showed a realistic and efficient approach to presence and implementing the tasks with communication to the deadline, which was within two weeks. As in the model, we decreased anxiety sensations. To some degree, we were all Specialists, bringing in our own ultimate knowledge, as modified. In my case, this involved particular knowledge of the background of the finger rub test Union, which added to the decision-making procedure of the group. It went into the group pot and became fraction of its yield.
In addition to this, the specialist of Basic Skills also made a significant content-based contribution. On top of such individual specialist assignments, a number of people took on extra collating, organising, and summarising chores. We had a high-quality organiser and facilitator as the Chair of the group. The assessment role also demonstrated a amalgamation of individual attempt and harmonization, and a number of us were efficiently Monitor assessors. The twenty-six paged task of individuals were sent around the group members for interpretation and comments, which was a swap of knowledge, supplementary to co-ordination. In this way, we were all Implementers to some extent.
Conclusion
To be able to have analytical and reflective elements about issues, experiences or events one needs to show a deeper level of thought. To be critically reflective, one needs to analyse ones experiences and record any shifts in their views. Sometimes one is asked to identify and challenge underlying assumptions, beliefs, and views through reflective account writing or explore how one could try to bring about a change and afterwards reflect on what happened. Reflective writing is done after one has had time to think about the implications of the experience in relation to the ideas and theories one is studying. Therefore, it is imperative that to deduce that from the above reflective account I have gained a lot from the project.
References
The Banffshire Partnership Ltd. (1994), (nd), Belbin's Team Role Theory. Retrieved April 04 2006 from http://www.srds.co.uk/cedtraining/handouts/hand40.htm, adapted from West, M. Effective Teamwork, The British Psychology Society
Biggs, J., (1999), teaching for quality learning at university. Buckingham: Open University Press
Cartwright, R., Collins, M., Green, G., Candy, A. (1993). Managing People: A Competence Approach to Supervisory Management. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 113-117.
The Center for Service and Leadership (nd), Leadership Tips: Five Stages of Group Development; Virginia: George Mason University. Retrieved April 03 2006 from http://www.gmu.edu/student/csl/5stages.html, adapted from Tuckman, B. (1965). 'Developmental Sequence in Small Groups'. Psychological Bulletin, 63, 384-399, and Tuckman, B. & Jensen, M. (1977) 'Stages of Small Group Development'. Group and Organizational Studies, 2, 419-427.
Chapman, A. (2005), 'Belbin’s Team Roles', Personality Theories, Types and Tests;
Schon, D. (1987) Educating the Reflective Practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Publishers
Smits, C., Kapteyn, T. S., Houtgast, T. (2004) Development and validation of an automatic speech-in-noise test by telephone. Internation Journal of Audiology. 43:15-28
Uhlmann R, Rees T, Psaty B, Duckert L. (1989). Validity and reliability of auditory screening tests in demented and non-demented older adults. Journal of General Internal Medicine.
