Self-Report Outcome Measures for Adult Hearing Aid Services: Some Uses, Users, and Options

Gatehouse, Stuart

doi:10.1177/108471380100500302

Cited by 18 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Although much research has focused on DD hearing in quiet environments, a few studies have estimated listener performance in noise, which is of considerable interest because typical listening environments contain noise (Pearsons et al, 1977). Two studies (Good and Gilkey, 1996;Lorenzi et al, 1999a) provide systematic evaluations of DD hearing in normal hearers across a range of signalto-noise ratios (SNR), using a click train target stimulus and a white noise masker. The results of both studies indicated that DD hearing was resistant to the effects of noise; with nearly perfect performance obtained at SNR of 0 to 2 dB and greater.…”

Section: Direction and Distance Hearingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As greater importance is awarded to the results of studies using questionnaire and psychophysical outcome measures, clinicians and clinical researchers must take more responsibility for the informed selection of the measures. Gatehouse (2001) There is relatively little information about the quantitative characteristics of the scores from the array of tests conventionally used in clinical audiology and auditory research. It is possible that many of the tests that are currently used in audiology measure the same aspect of hearing, but the scores returned by these tests may be different because they are influenced by different factors that are unrelated to the person's underlying ability to hear.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Examination of the Validity of Auditory Traits and Tests

Flamme

2001

Trends in Amplification

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Direction and Distance Hearingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Examination of the Validity of Auditory Traits and Tests

Flamme

2001

Trends in Amplification

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Hearing aid fitting is typically determined by pure-tone thresholds, with the fitting verified by other audiologic measures, such as speech recognition scores and real-ear probe-microphone measures [Carhart, 1946;Dillon et al, 1997]. Some audiologists may also use patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) of hearing aid benefit and quality of life to supplement audiologic measures, such as the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB), Clinically Oriented Scale of Improvement (COSI), Speech Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ), and International Outcomes Inventory-Hearing Aids (IOI-HA) [Cox and Alexander, 1992;Dillon et al, 1997;Cox et al, 2000;Gatehouse, 2001; Killion and Gudmundsen, 2005;Mendel, 2007]. However, the relationship between audiologic measures used for hearing aid fitting and PROMs that assess hearing aid benefit remains uncertain, which limits the ability of providers to assess the appropriateness of the fit and predict hearing aid use and satisfaction.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of Hearing Aid Benefit Using Patient-Reported Outcomes and Audiologic Measures

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: To determine the contributions to hearing aid benefit of patient-reported outcomes and audiologic measures. Methods: Independent review was conducted on audiologic and patient-reported outcomes of hearing aid benefit collected in the course of a middle ear implant FDA clinical trial. Unaided and aided data were extracted from the preoperative profiles of 95 experienced hearing aid users, and the relationships between a patient-reported outcome and audiologic measures were assessed. The following data were extracted: unaided and aided pure-tone or warble-tone thresholds (PTA), word recognition in quiet (NU-6), Speech Perception in Noise (low-/high-context SPIN), and patient-reported benefit (Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit, APHAB). Hearing aid benefit was defined as the difference in thresholds or scores between unaided and aided conditions, as measured in the sound field. Correlations were computed among audiologic measures and global APHAB and subscale scores of hearing aid benefit. Results: Significant improvements in all audiologic measures and APHAB scores were observed comparing unaided to aided listening (all p < 0.001). However, correlations between audiologic and patient-reported measures of aided performance or hearing aid benefit were low-to-weak or absent. No significant correlations were found between aided audiologic measures (PTA, NU-6, SPIN) and any aided APHAB scores (all p > 0.0125), and significant relationships for hearing aid benefit were absent with only few exceptions. Hearing aid benefit defined by global APHAB using NU-6 and SPIN scores showed significant but weak positive correlations (r = 0.37, p < 0.001; r = 0.28, p = 0.005, respectively) and ease of communication APHAB subscale scores (r = 0.32, p < 0.001; r = 0.33, p = 0.001, respectively). Conclusion: Hearing aid benefit assessed with audiologic measures were poor predictors of patient-reported benefit. Thus, patient-reported outcomes may provide a unique assessment of patient-perceived benefit from hearing aids, which can be used to direct hearing aid programming, training, or recommendations of alternative hearing services.

show abstract

“…Defining the client’s targets provides insight into the client’s expectations ( Dillon & So, 2000 ) and rehabilitation needs. It is essential that the most important hearing-related problems are identified prior to a hearing aid fitting, since solutions for some of the problems may not be optimal for solving some other problems (Bennett, Laplante-Lévesque, Meyer, & Eikelboom, 2017; Gatehouse, 2001 ). Focusing on personal needs and expectations makes COSI very useful for individual patients, but complicates the comparison of rehabilitation needs or related benefits for groups of patients ( Cox et al., 2000 ; Saunders et al., 2005 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of Auditory Functioning and Rehabilitation Using Patient-Reported Outcome Measures

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is lack of a systematic approach concerning how to select an adequate hearing aid and how to evaluate its efficacy with respect to the personal needs of rehabilitation. The goal of this study was to examine the applicability and added value of two widely used self-reporting questionnaires in relation to the evaluation of hearing aid fitting. We analyzed responses, pre- and postfitting, from 1,319 subjects who completed the Client Oriented Scale of Improvement (COSI) and a slightly adapted version of the Amsterdam Inventory for Auditory Disability and Handicap (in Dutch: AVAB). Most COSI responses were at or near the maximum possible score. Results show a close relation between COSI’s degree of change and final ability (Spearman’s rho = 0.71). Both AVAB and COSI showed a significant effect of hearing aid experience, but—in contrast to AVAB—COSI did not show a significant effect of the degree of hearing loss. In addition, a Friedman test showed significant differences between six dimensions of auditory functioning for both AVAB and COSI, although post hoc analysis revealed that for COSI, the dimension speech in quiet explained most variation between dimensions. In conclusion, the effects of hearing loss were more salient in AVAB, while both AVAB and COSI showed differences regarding hearing aid experience. Combining the advantages of both methods results in a detailed evaluation of hearing aid rehabilitation. Our results therefore suggest that both methods should be used in a complementary manner, rather than separately.

show abstract

Self-Report Outcome Measures for Adult Hearing Aid Services: Some Uses, Users, and Options

Cited by 18 publications

References 37 publications

Examination of the Validity of Auditory Traits and Tests

Examination of the Validity of Auditory Traits and Tests

Assessment of Hearing Aid Benefit Using Patient-Reported Outcomes and Audiologic Measures

Evaluation of Auditory Functioning and Rehabilitation Using Patient-Reported Outcome Measures

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About