Changes in Hearing-Aid Benefit Following 1 or 2 Years of Hearing-Aid Use by Older Adults

2002 ◽  
Vol 45 (4) ◽  
pp. 772-782 ◽  
Author(s):  
Larry E. Humes ◽  
Dana L. Wilson ◽  
Nancy N. Barlow ◽  
Carolyn Garner
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
The Elderly ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Individual Data ◽  
Data Set ◽  
Hearing Aid Use ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Almost All ◽  
Hearing Aid Benefit

This study reports the results of a large number of hearing-aid benefit measures obtained from 134 elderly hearing-aid wearers during the first year of hearing-aid usage. Benefit measures were obtained after 1 month, 6 months, and 1 year of hearing-aid use by all participants. In addition, follow-up measurements of hearing-aid benefit were performed on 49 of these same hearing-aid wearers following 2 years of hearing-aid use. All participants in this study were fit binaurally with identical full-concha in-the-ear (ITE) hearing aids that used linear Class-D amplifiers with output-limiting compression. Benefit measures included several objective tests of speech recognition, as well as the subjective self-report scales of the Hearing Aid Performance Inventory (HAPI; B. E. Walden, M. E. Demorest, & E. L. Hepler) and the Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly (HHIE; I. Ventry & B. Weinstein, 1982). Although group means changed only slightly over time for all of the benefit measures, significant differences were observed for some of the benefit measures, especially among the subjective, self-report measures of benefit. In almost all of the cases exhibiting significant changes, performance was significantly worse (less benefit) at both the 6-month and 1-year post-fit interval compared to the measurements at 1 month post-fit. In general, the individual data from the 134 participants who were represented in the 1-year data set were consistent with the trends in the group data described above. Regarding longer term changes in benefit following 2 years of hearing-aid use, minimal changes were again observed. In all, there was little evidence for acclimatization of hearing-aid benefit in this study in either the group or the individual data.

Hearing-Aid Outcome Measures Following One Month of Hearing Aid Use by the Elderly

2001 ◽  
Vol 44 (3) ◽  
pp. 469-486 ◽  
Author(s):  
Larry E. Humes ◽  
Carolyn B. Garner ◽  
Dana L. Wilson ◽  
Nancy N. Barlow
Keyword(s):  
Factor Analysis ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
The Elderly ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Elderly Persons ◽  
Impaired Hearing ◽  
Hearing Aid Use ◽  
Class D

This study reports the results of a large number of hearing-aid outcome measures obtained from 173 elderly hearing-aid wearers following one month of hearing-aid use. All participants in this study were fit binaurally with identical full-concha in-the-ear (ITE) hearing aids having linear Class-D amplifiers with output-limiting compression. Outcome measures included several measures of speech recognition, as well as several self-report measures of hearing-aid performance, benefit, satisfaction, and use. Comparison of mean data from this sample of hearing-aid wearers to other larger sets of data, obtained previously for several of these measures of hearing-aid outcome evaluated in isolation, indicated that the participants in this study were representative of the participants in other largerscale studies. Subsequent principal-components factor analysis of the data from this study indicated that there were seven distinct dimensions of hearing-aid outcome. Attempts to document the effectiveness and efficacy of hearing aids for elderly persons with impaired hearing will be most complete when assessing performance along all seven dimensions of hearing-aid outcome. Clinically efficient procedures for doing so are discussed.

scholarly journals Is the Device-Oriented Subjective Outcome (DOSO) Independent of Personality?

2017 ◽  
Vol 28 (10) ◽  
pp. 932-940 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yu-Hsiang Wu ◽  
Kelsey Dumanch ◽  
Elizabeth Stangl ◽  
Christi Miller ◽  
Kelly Tremblay ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Personality Traits ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
The Elderly ◽  
Outcome Data ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Elderly Adult ◽  
Subjective Outcome ◽  
Hearing Aid Benefit ◽  
The Relationship

Background: Self-report questionnaires are a frequently used method of evaluating hearing aid outcomes. Studies have shown that personality can account for 5–20% of the variance in response to self-report measures. As a result, these influences can impact results and limit their generalizability when the purpose of the study is to examine the technological merit of hearing aids. To reduce personality influences on self-report outcome data, the Device-Oriented Subjective Outcome (DOSO) was developed. The DOSO is meant to demonstrate outcomes of the amplification device relatively independent of the individual’s personality. Still, it is unknown if the DOSO achieves its original goal. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between personality and the DOSO. The relationship between personality and several widely used hearing-related questionnaires was also examined. Research Design: This is a nonexperimental study using a correlational design. Study Sample: A total of 119 adult hearing aid wearers participated in the study. Data Collection and Analysis: The NEO Five-Factor Inventory was used to measure five personality traits (Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness). The initial (unaided) hearing disablement, residual (aided) hearing disablement, and hearing aid benefit and satisfaction was measured using the DOSO, Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly/Adult, Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit, and Satisfaction with Amplification in Daily Life. The relationship between personality and each questionnaire was examined using a correlation analysis. Results: All of the DOSO subscales were found to be significantly correlated to personality, regardless of whether age and better-ear hearing thresholds were controlled. Individuals who reported poorer hearing aid outcomes tended to have higher Neuroticism scores, while those who scored higher in Extraversion, Openness, and Agreeableness were more likely to report better outcomes. Across DOSO subscales, the maximum variance explained by personality traits ranged from 6% to 11%. Consistent with the literature, ˜3–18% of the variance of other hearing-related questionnaires was attributable to personality. Conclusions: The degree to which personality affects the DOSO is similar to other hearing-related questionnaires. Although the variance accounted for by personality is not large, researchers and clinicians should not assume that the results of the DOSO are independent of personality.

Subjective Measures of Hearing Aid Benefit and Satisfaction in the NIDCD/VA Follow-Up Study

2007 ◽  
Vol 18 (04) ◽  
pp. 323-349 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gail Takahashi ◽  
Charles D. Martinez ◽  
Sharon Beamer ◽  
Julie Bridges ◽  
Douglas Noffsinger ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Use Patterns ◽  
Speech In Noise ◽  
Follow Up Study ◽  
Hearing Aid Use ◽  
Almost All ◽  
Hearing Aid Benefit

Perceived benefit, satisfaction, and hearing aid use patterns were measured in a follow-up study to a large-scale multi-site clinical trial conducted in 1996–97. Measures included the Hearing Aid Status Questionnaire, the Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit, the Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit Profile, the Satisfaction with Amplification in Daily Life, and the International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids. On the Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit, hearing aid users indicated more unaided difficulty in easy listening situations and less aided benefit in more difficult listening situations compared to the original study. Subjects who no longer used hearing aids indicated less difficulty in unaided situations. All measures indicated significant long-term subjective benefit and satisfaction with hearing aids. Although understanding speech in noise or in group situations continues to be problematic, subjects reported wearing their hearing aids almost all of the time in both easy and difficult listening situations. Se midió el beneficio y la satisfacción del paciente y los patrones de uso del auxiliar auditivo (AA) en un estudio de seguimiento de un estudio clínico, multicéntrico, a larga escala, conducido en 1996–97. Las mediciones incluyeron el Cuestionario del Estado de Uso del Auxiliar Auditivo, el Perfil de Beneficio del Auxiliar Auditivo, El Perfil de Glasgow de Beneficio del Auxiliar Auditivo, la Prueba de Satisfacción con la Amplificación en la Vida Diaria, y el Inventario Internacional de Resultados de Auxiliares Auditivos. En el Perfil de Beneficio de Auxiliares Auditivos, los usuarios de AA indicaron más dificultad sin amplificación en situaciones fáciles de escucha y menor beneficio con amplificación en situaciones difíciles de escucha, comparado con el estudio original. Los sujetos que no volvieron a usar sus AA indicaron menos dificultad en situaciones no amplificadas. Todas las medidas indicaron una satisfacción y un beneficio subjetivo y significativo a largo plazo, con los AA. Aunque entender el lenguaje en ruido o en situaciones grupales continúa siendo problemático, los sujetos reportaron la utilización de sus AA casi todo el tiempo, tanto en situaciones fáciles como difíciles de escucha.

An Examination of Changes in Hearing-Aid Performance and Benefit in the Elderly Over a 3-Year Period of Hearing-Aid Use

2003 ◽  
Vol 46 (1) ◽  
pp. 137-145 ◽  
Author(s):  
Larry E. Humes ◽  
Dana L. Wilson
Keyword(s):  
Signal To Noise Ratio ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
The Elderly ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Hearing Aid Use ◽  
Systematic Improvement ◽  
Measurement Protocol ◽  
Hearing Handicap ◽  
Standardized Measurement ◽  
Hearing Aid Benefit

This brief report describes the changes in hearing-aid performance and benefit in 9 elderly hearing-aid wearers over a 3-year period following the hearing-aid fitting. Objective measures of hearing-aid performance included three measures of speech recognition: (a) the Nonsense Syllable Test (NST) presented at 65 dB SPL and a +8 dB signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), (b) the Connected Speech Test (CST) presented at 50 dB SPL in quiet, and (c) the CST presented at 65 dB SPL and a +8 dB SNR. Subjective, self-report measures of hearing-aid benefit included the Hearing Aid Performance Inventory (HAPI; B. E. Walden, M. E. Demorest, & E. L. Helper, 1984) and the Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly (HHIE; I. Ventry & B. Weinstein, 1982). Performance and benefit measures were obtained at postfit intervals of 1 month, 6 months, 1 year, 2 years, and 3 years using a standardized measurement protocol. Individual data were evaluated using 95% critical differences established previously for each benefit measure and applied around the scores observed at the 1-month postfit interval. Little evidence was seen for systematic improvement in aided performance or benefit, consistent with that expected from acclimatization, in any participant or for any measure of benefit.

The Relationship Between Hearing Loss Self-Management and Hearing Aid Benefit and Satisfaction

2019 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 274-284 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Convery ◽  
Gitte Keidser ◽  
Louise Hickson ◽  
Carly Meyer
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Self Management ◽  
Hearing Aid Benefit ◽  
The Relationship

Purpose Hearing loss self-management refers to the knowledge and skills people use to manage the effects of hearing loss on all aspects of their daily lives. The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between self-reported hearing loss self-management and hearing aid benefit and satisfaction. Method Thirty-seven adults with hearing loss, all of whom were current users of bilateral hearing aids, participated in this observational study. The participants completed self-report inventories probing their hearing loss self-management and hearing aid benefit and satisfaction. Correlation analysis was used to investigate the relationship between individual domains of hearing loss self-management and hearing aid benefit and satisfaction. Results Participants who reported better self-management of the effects of their hearing loss on their emotional well-being and social participation were more likely to report less aided listening difficulty in noisy and reverberant environments and greater satisfaction with the effect of their hearing aids on their self-image. Participants who reported better self-management in the areas of adhering to treatment, participating in shared decision making, accessing services and resources, attending appointments, and monitoring for changes in their hearing and functional status were more likely to report greater satisfaction with the sound quality and performance of their hearing aids. Conclusion Study findings highlight the potential for using information about a patient's hearing loss self-management in different domains as part of clinical decision making and management planning.

Use of a Mild-Gain Hearing Aid by Middle-Age Normal-Hearing Adults Who Do and Do Not Self-Report Trouble Hearing in Background Noise

2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (3) ◽  
pp. 419-428
Author(s):  
Jasleen Singh ◽  
Karen A. Doherty
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Background Noise ◽  
Middle Age ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Hearing Aid Use ◽  
Hearing Handicap ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Hearing Problems

Purpose The aim of the study was to assess how the use of a mild-gain hearing aid can affect hearing handicap, motivation, and attitudes toward hearing aids for middle-age, normal-hearing adults who do and do not self-report trouble hearing in background noise. Method A total of 20 participants (45–60 years of age) with clinically normal-hearing thresholds (< 25 dB HL) were enrolled in this study. Ten self-reported difficulty hearing in background noise, and 10 did not self-report difficulty hearing in background noise. All participants were fit with mild-gain hearing aids, bilaterally, and were asked to wear them for 2 weeks. Hearing handicap, attitudes toward hearing aids and hearing loss, and motivation to address hearing problems were evaluated before and after participants wore the hearing aids. Participants were also asked if they would consider purchasing a hearing aid before and after 2 weeks of hearing aid use. Results After wearing the hearing aids for 2 weeks, hearing handicap scores decreased for the participants who self-reported difficulty hearing in background noise. No changes in hearing handicap scores were observed for the participants who did not self-report trouble hearing in background noise. The participants who self-reported difficulty hearing in background noise also reported greater personal distress from their hearing problems, were more motivated to address their hearing problems, and had higher levels of hearing handicap compared to the participants who did not self-report trouble hearing in background noise. Only 20% (2/10) of the participants who self-reported trouble hearing in background noise reported that they would consider purchasing a hearing aid after 2 weeks of hearing aid use. Conclusions The use of mild-gain hearing aids has the potential to reduce hearing handicap for normal-hearing, middle-age adults who self-report difficulty hearing in background noise. However, this may not be the most appropriate treatment option for their current hearing problems given that only 20% of these participants would consider purchasing a hearing aid after wearing hearing aids for 2 weeks.

Reliability and Stability of Various Hearing-Aid Outcome Measures in a Group of Elderly Hearing-Aid Wearers

1996 ◽  
Vol 39 (5) ◽  
pp. 923-935 ◽  
Author(s):  
Larry E. Humes ◽  
Dan Halling ◽  
Maureen Coughlin
Keyword(s):  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Nonsense Syllable ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Objective Measure ◽  
The Elderly ◽  
Elderly Persons ◽  
Hearing Aid Use ◽  
Hearing Handicap

Twenty elderly persons with hearing impairment were fit with binaural in-the-ear hearing aids and followed for a 6-month period post-fit. Several hearing-aid outcome measures were obtained at 0, 7, 15, 30, 60, 90, and 180 days post-fit. Outcome measures included (a) objective measures of benefit obtained with nonsense-syllable materials in quiet (CUNY Nonsense Syllable Test, NST) and sentences in multitalker babble (Hearing in Noise Test, HINT); (b) two subjective measures of benefit, one derived from pre-fit/post-fit comparisons on a general scale of hearing handicap (Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly, HHIE) and the other based on a subjective scale of post-fit hearing-aid benefit (Hearing Aid Performance Inventory, HAPI); (c) a questionnaire on hearing-aid satisfaction; (d) an objective measure of hearing-aid use; and (e) a subjective measure of hearing-aid use. Reliability and stability of each measure were examined through repeated-measures analyses of variance, a series of test-retest correlations, and, where possible, scatterplots of the scores against their corresponding 95% critical differences. Many of the measures were found to be both reliable and stable indicators of hearing-aid outcome.

scholarly journals A Comparative Study on Hearing Aid Benefits of Digital Hearing Aid Use (BTE) from Six Months to Two Years

2016 ◽  
Vol 21 (03) ◽  
pp. 224-231 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lukeshwari Verma ◽  
Himanshu Sanju ◽  
Bibina Scaria ◽  
Mayank Awasthi ◽  
Aparna Ravichandran ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Listening Skills ◽  
Self Assessment ◽  
Hearing Aid Use ◽  
Digital Hearing Aid ◽  
Auditory Performance ◽  
One Year ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Hearing Aid Benefit

Introduction For many reasons, it is important for audiologists and consumers to document improvement and benefit from amplification device at various stages of uses of amplification device. Professional are also interested to see the impact of amplification device on the consumer's auditory performance at different stages i.e. immediately after fitting and over several months of use. Objective The objective of the study was to measure the hearing aid benefit following 6 months – 1-year usage, 1 year – 1.5 yeaŕs usage, and 1.5 yeaŕs – 2 years' usage. Methods A total of 45 subjects participated in the study and were divided equally in three groups: hearing aid users from 6 months to 1 year, 1 year to 1.5 year, and 1.5 year to two years. All subjects responded to the Hearing Aid Benefit Questionnaire (63 questions), which assesses six domains of listening skills. Result Results showed the mean scores obtained were higher for all domains in the aided condition, as compared with unaided condition for all groups. Results also showed a significant improvement in the overall score between first-time users with hearing aid experience of six months to one year and hearing aid users using hearing aids for a period between 1.5 and 2 years. Conclusion It is possible to conclude that measuring the hearing aid benefit with the self-assessment questionnaires will assist the clinicians in making judgments about the areas in which a patient is experiencing more difficulty in everyday listening environment and in revising the possible technologies.

Patterns of Hearing Aid Usage Predict Hearing Aid Use Amount (Data Logged and Self-Reported) and Overreport

2014 ◽  
Vol 25 (02) ◽  
pp. 187-198 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ariane Laplante-Lévesque ◽  
Claus Nielsen ◽  
Lisbeth Dons Jensen ◽  
Graham Naylor
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Clinical Sample ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Data Logging ◽  
Available N ◽  
Hearing Aid Use ◽  
Usage Patterns ◽  
Positive Rate ◽  
The Cost

Background: Previous studies found that, on average, users overreport their daily amount of hearing aid use compared to objective measures such as data logging. However, the reasons for this are unclear. Purpose: This study assessed data-logged and self-reported amount of hearing aid use in a clinical sample of hearing aid users. It identified predictors of data-logged hearing aid use, self-reported hearing aid use, and hearing aid use overreport. Research Design: This observational study recruited adult hearing aid users from 22 private dispensers in the Netherlands and in Denmark. Study Sample: The sample consisted of 228 hearing aid users. Typical participants were over the age of 65 and retired, were fitted binaurally, and had financially contributed to the cost of their hearing aids. Participants had on average a mild-to-severe sloping bilateral hearing impairment. Data Collection and Analysis: Participants completed a purposefully designed questionnaire regarding hearing aid usage and the International Outcome Inventory—Hearing Aids. Dispensers collected audiometric results and data logging. Multiple linear regression identified predictors of data-logged hearing aid use, self-reported hearing aid use, and hearing aid use overreport when controlling for covariates. Results: Data logging showed on average 10.5 hr of hearing aid use (n = 184), while participants reported on average 11.8 hr of daily hearing aid use (n = 206). In participants for which both data-logged and self-reported hearing aid use data were available (n = 166), the average absolute overreport of daily hearing aid use was 1.2 (1 hr and 11 min). Relative overreport was expressed as a rate of absolute overreport divided by data-logged hearing aid use. A positive rate denotes hearing aid use overreport: the average overreport rate was .38. Cluster analysis identified two data-logged patterns: “Regular,” where hearing aids are typically switched on for between 12 and 20 hr before their user powers them off (57% of the sample), and “On-off,” where hearing aids are typically switched on for shorter periods of time before being powered off (43% of the sample). In terms of self-report, 77% of the sample described their hearing aid use to be the same every day, while 23% of the sample described their hearing aid use to be different from day to day. Participants for whom data logging showed an On-off pattern or who reported their hearing aid use to be different from day to day had significantly fewer data-logged and self-reported hours of hearing aid use. Having an On-off data-logging pattern or describing hearing aid use as the same every day was associated with a significantly greater hearing aid use overreport. Conclusions: Data-logged and self-reported usage patterns significantly predicted data-logged hearing aid use, self-reported hearing aid use, and overreport when controlling for covariates. The results point to patterns of hearing aid usage as being at least as important a concept as amount of hearing aid use. Dispensers should discuss not only the “how much”, but also the “how” of hearing aid usage with their clients.

Hearing Specific and Generic Measures of the Psychosocial Impact of Hearing Aids

2004 ◽  
Vol 15 (03) ◽  
pp. 238-248 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gabrielle H. Saunders ◽  
Jeffrey W. Jutai
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Relative Sensitivity ◽  
Psychosocial Impact ◽  
Assistive Devices ◽  
Hearing Aid Use ◽  
One Year ◽  
Generic Measures ◽  
Hearing Aid Benefit ◽  
The Relationship

Hearing-specific and generic measures of hearing aid outcome were examined in order (a) to determine their relative sensitivity to hearing aid use and (b) to examine the relationship between pre–hearing aid use expectations and post-use outcomes. Ninety-two hearing-impaired individuals completed some combination of the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit, Expected Consequences of Hearing Aid Ownership (ECHO), Satisfaction with Amplification in Daily Life (SADL), and Psychosocial Impact of Assistive Devices Scale, and provided reports of their daily and lifetime hearing aid use. In general, (a) the longer individuals wear hearing aids, the more positive the reported outcome, and (b) ECHO scores of non–hearing aid users are higher than SADL scores of new hearing aid users (six weeks to one year of use) but are similar to those obtained from experienced users (greater than one year of use). Between-questionnaire comparisons showed the generic measure to be as sensitive as the hearing aid specific measures. We suggest that generic measures have some advantages over hearing specific measures but that each has a place in the clinic.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document