When I went to buy hearing aids I did not know that there was a difference between an audiologist and a hearing aid dispenser. I thought that all hearing aid dispensers were audiologist (I now know this is not the case). What, if any, difference is there between using one or the other? Which do you prefer and why? Would like your input on pros and cons of each.
Thank you so much! Betty
I prefer the one who can properly program my aids for my loss and lifestyle, and could not care less about anything else.
I would even prefer a person who can program a mid-grade set of aids to their best performance versus another one who can program top-line aids adequately.
An Audiologist is required to go through 8 years of audiology school and graduates as a Doctor of Audiology. An audiologist is well-versed in the anatomy and physiology of the auditory system and cognitive processes. If you are concerned about your hearing, it is best to have it checked out by an Audiologist, who can then refer you to a medical doctor if there are underlying issues, or to a hearing aid dispenser.
Audiologists are also able to obtain a dispensing license and dispense hearing aids, and as a general rule, audiologists are more oriented to helping a patient hear better, and patient care.
A Hearing Aid Dispenser is not qualified to medically diagnose hearing loss. Most dispensers are supposed to obtain medical clearance before dispensing hearing aids. Hearing Aid Dispensers are not usually held to the same professional standards as Audiologists. They are required to obtain a state license to dispense hearing aids, as are Audiologists. Hearing Aid Dispensers are usually better versed in Hearing Aid technology and programming.
Hope that helped!
Speaking for myself - and I did a lot of research and met both audis and dispensers - I would choose the audiologist with the Doctorate. In my opinion, even someone who graduated last in their class as an AuD has more knowledge than a dispenser; quite frankly, I value education. In my state, the consumer complaints are almost all about dispensers. Few, if any about audis.
I presume your on about the roles of these in the USA but in UK its slightly different.
An audiologist is someone who has studied for 4 years (not a dr. of audiology) but does have a considerable knowledge of the auditory system and hearing aids and thus can work for the national health service. A dispenser would be someone who doesnt work for the NHS and works in the private sector. They may still have the 4 years training of an audiologist and then chosen to work private or there are more minimal courses you can study that qualify you to just dispense hearing aids privatley.
Historically speaking, that’s accurate, now though?
Current entry is foundation degree or full BSc. Plus you’re unlikely to find a really ‘green’ dispenser who isn’t working for the nationals as hardly anybody independent can afford to carry a redundant member of staff for the training period.
I value SKILL, not education. I have had excellent fittings from a hearing aid fitter. The audie that runs the practice had only a masters. I recall chatting with her one year that she was going to get her Aud, which she did in ONE YEAR via distance learning. I certainly have no bias AGAINST audiologists, but fitting a hearing aid is only a very small part of audiology.
I’ll have to put on my asbestos suite for this one I’m sure, but my major was engineering and I know people that spent a full year just on their dissertation. Did the Auds here really spend EIGHT YEARs getting their degree? I am not so sure
Auds that have their doctorate certainly did. I spent a full 8 years (4 for my BS and 4 for my AuD) and a full year on my research requirement, which included defending (like dissertations). I certainly have the degrees (and student loan bill) to prove that.
But having all the education in the world doesn’t equate to being the best fitter. Some Audiologists don’t fit hearing aids at all, some that’s what they spend their whole career doing.
dr.amy
Ah yeh i keep forgetting about the foundation degree now. I know a few people who did their MSc in aud and left NHS for private dispensing though.
You don’t need an asbestos suit - I have my opinion, and you have yours - I’m not forcing anyone to agree with me.
And yes, here in the US it takes eight years (just as my Doctorate was) of study.
This is maybe misleading for people who don’t know…but the first four years (especially the first two) of study isn’t all that specific. To me it’s like saying “it took twenty years of study to get my Doctorate,” which is accurate but includes your first twelve years of high school, which really wasn’t studying audiology.
It’s an unfortunate fact that hearing professionals, both Audiologists and Dispensers, are human. Therefore, the quality and accuracy of their fittings do not always correlate with their education.
Believe me there are good ones and not so good ones. And their education may or may not always tell you the quality of their business ethics.
IMO Ed
I don’t see what was misleading about my original statement. I didn’t claim it took 20 years to get a Doctorate in Audiology. We said it took 8 years of study at a University, which is accurate.
The first 2 years of ANY advanced degree is full of basic classes not usually directly related to your field (doctors, engineers…). You need this foundation to make it through the rest of your education.
So here is the truth (without any misleading info) - in the US, obtaining your Au.D. (Doctorate in Audiology) requires 8 years of college, 4 in undergraduate study and 4 in graduate school.
dr.amy
Wow, that’s almost like a troll answer. You like to create online arguments or something?
First off, an audiologist does not have to obtain eight years of schooling to become an audiologist. Their undergraduate degree might be in geography, French, general studies or political science. Could be anything really. So if we are being REAL for a moment, the actual audiological schooling is probably 2-4 years. Not that that in any way equates automatically to skill, knowledge or ability in the field.
In fact if we take your misguided ideals to the next level one could argue that really it would be best if a medical doctor, perhaps an ENT should be the best person to see. After all the FDA do recommend a medical doctor evaluate a patient with a new loss, and since an audiologist is not a medical doctor, why start there?
As for the ability of a hearing professional to check for medically referable conditions, that is a requirement of both hearing instrument specialists, and audiologists alike. In fact there is no medically referable condition that is ignored by either hearing professional, since either could and would lose their license to practice if they are caught ignoring medical conditions. This mechanism ensures that ALL hearing professionals are well versed in referring as appropriate, since both would lose their jobs if they failed to do this.
Your assertion that audiologists are ‘more oriented’ to helping a ‘patient to hear better’ is simply not based on any fact or objective analysis. All hearing professionals are motivated to helping patients to hear better. If they don’t, they fail in their role, which is likely going to have negative effects on their careers and reputations. To claim that audiologists are operating on some higher plain of social, ethical or moral standards, because they spent a couple of extra years in school is intellectual snobbery at best. I’ve met hearing instrument specialists who have dedicated 25+ years to helping people to hear better. Do you really think they would make that their life’s work if they didn’t care? And do you really think that in a quarter of a century they didn’t accumulate years of hands on experience helping people to hear?
You talked about a difference in ‘standards.’ That I disagree with too. But I’ll leave it to you to present evidence of this assertion.
Finally, you made a claim that despite all the education and ethics you applied to audiologists, you concluded that a Hearing Instrument Specialist is ‘usually’ better at programming and fitting hearing aid technology. That’s another weird statement. How can you make all these claims about the ethics, education, ability and standards of an audiologist, and then claim that the latter is less likely to be able to program a hearing aid or understand the underlying technology of said device?
Bottom line, your post is nothing but sweeping generalizations that have no bearing in the real world. A hearing professional can be measured in one single way. Do they demonstrate the ability to help people to hear? This can be achieved by either professions, and within each there are idiots, professionals, losers, experts, high flyers, and bottom feeders. Some are ethical, some are not. Some know their profession back to front, and some do not. But at the end of the day it is the individual that matters, not whether they spent three years honing their trade in a classroom or in the real world.
Dr. Amy, you are perhaps my favorite audiologist on this forum, but you know it is not really accurate to claim that a typical audiologist has an eight year qualification under their belt. How many audiologists did four years of undergraduate work that was directly related to hearing?
Mostly the undergraduate work is proof to a school that you have the capacity to learn. It is the key that unlocks the door that allows you to study for a masters or AuD. Those first four years are probably not anything that actually relates to the profession in question.
As for the four years of AuD school, a lot of that is down to the skill of the student. My wife got her PhD in 2.5 years, winning eight national awards in her field in the process. While many of her fellow students have taken four or more years, the fact is measuring ones qualification by the length of time it took to obtain it, does not always demonstrate greater aptitude in the field.
Now that my wife is a college professor, we see students all the time that take six years to finally flake out of their PhD as ABD. They could claim that they have TEN YEARS of education in their field, but that doesn’t make their qualification superior because of the time factor.
The other thing I’ve learned, as I watched my own wife rise through the ranks, is how a PhD or AuD is more than just a diploma to hang on the wall. These days if you want to be taken seriously in your field, it’s all about the quality of the dissertation, the number of published peer reviewed journal articles, the number of presentations (invited / requested / national vs. international etc.), the awards etc. In short the sum total of the vitae.
There are people in audiology, as with a hundred other professions, who struggled through years of school to get that diploma. But none of that automatically makes for an expert in their field.
I’m not trying to have a go, or start an argument. But I do think we need to be real on the subject of education.
If it were just about education, surgeons, doctors, lawyers would be beyond reproach, but history has shown us that all are human and have to be judged on their own merits.
I think you’ve been victim to a spam-bot there… 
Wow ZCT, I agree with your posts so much I’m going to loan you my aspestos suit!
Jeez, I was just saying that it might be misleading for one to say “it took eight years to get my Ph.D.” Technically a doctorate program is between three to five years…and my understanding is that a Ph.D. in audiology is four years. It’s a four-year program, not eight. That was all I meant. Like law school is three years, NOT seven, although I could technically include my Bachelor’s degree in that and say “it took seven years to obtain a law degree.” But that is misleading in my opinion.
Sorry to any audis I offended. Jeez.
Actually it isn’t ‘truth’ since an AuD candidate doesn’t “study audiology” for eight years as asserted by your quote. I understand that the ‘first two years of ANY advanced degree (doctors, engineers…) is full of basic classes,’ which is why I made the (apparently inflammatory) distinction in the first place. I (for example) got a Bachelor’s in psychology and went to law school, so in fact I studied NO law until law school. Many MD candidates study biology for their undergraduate degrees, but I have a friend who studied engineering and did well on the MCATS and got into med school.
Yeah, well I showed it who is boss 