Initial-Fit Approach Versus Verified Prescription: Comparing Self-Perceived Hearing Aid Benefit

2012 ◽  
Vol 23 (10) ◽  
pp. 768-778 ◽  
Author(s):  
Harvey B. Abrams ◽  
Theresa H. Chisolm ◽  
Megan McManus ◽  
Rachel McArdle
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Hearing Aid Fitting ◽  
Fitting Method ◽  
Repeated Measures Analysis ◽  
Perceived Benefit ◽  
Eta Squared ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Hearing Aid Benefit

Background: Despite evidence suggesting inaccuracy in the default fittings provided by hearing aid manufacturers, the use of probe-microphone measures for the verification of fitting accuracy is routinely used by fewer than half of practicing audiologists. Purpose: The present study examined whether self-perception of hearing aid benefit, as measured through the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB; Cox and Alexander, 1995), differed as a function of hearing aid fitting method, specifically, manufacturer's initial-fit approach versus a verified prescription. The prescriptive fit began at NAL-NL1 targets, with adjustments based on participant request. Each of the two fittings included probe-microphone measurement. Research Design: A counterbalanced, cross-over, repeated-measures, single-blinded design was utilized to address the research objectives. Study Sample: Twenty-two experienced hearing aid users from the general Bay Pines VA Healthcare System audiology clinic population were randomized into one of two intervention groups. Intervention: At the first visit, half of the participants were fit with new hearing aids via the manufacturer's initial fit while the second half were fit to a verified prescription using probe-microphone measurement. After a wear period of 4–6 wk, the participants' hearing aids were refit via the alternate method and worn for an additional 4–6 wk. Participants were blinded to the method of fitting by utilizing probe-microphone measures with both approaches. Data Collection and Analysis: The APHAB was administered at baseline and at the end of each intervention trial. At the end of the second trial period, the participants were asked to identify which hearing aid fitting was “preferred.” The APHAB data were subjected to a general linear model repeated-measures analysis of variance. Results: For the three APHAB communication subscales (i.e., Ease of Communication, Reverberation, and Background Noise) mean scores obtained with the verified prescription were higher than those obtained with the initial-fit approach, indicating greater benefit with the former. The main effect of hearing aid fitting method was statistically significant [F (1, 21) = 4.69, p = 0.042] and accounted for 18% of the variance in the data (partial eta squared = 0.183). Although the mean benefit score for the APHAB Aversiveness subscale was also better (i.e., lower) for the verified prescription than the initial-fit approach, the difference was not statistically significant. Of the 22 participants, 7 preferred their hearing aids programmed to initial-fit settings and 15 preferred their hearing aids programmed to the verified prescription. Conclusions: The data support the conclusion that hearing aids fit to experienced hearing aid wearers using a verified prescription are more likely to yield better self-perceived benefit as measured by the APHAB than if fit using the manufacturer's initial-fit approach.

Comparison of In-the-Ear and Over-the-Ear Hearing Aid Fittings

1986 ◽  
Vol 51 (4) ◽  
pp. 362-369 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donna M. Risberg ◽  
Robyn M. Cox
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
High Frequency ◽  
Comparative Evaluation ◽  
Speech Intelligibility ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Hearing Aid Fitting ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Functional Gain ◽  
The Relationship

A custom in-the-ear (ITE) hearing aid fitting was compared to two over-the-ear (OTE) hearing aid fittings for each of 9 subjects with mild to moderately severe hearing losses. Speech intelligibility via the three instruments was compared using the Speech Intelligibility Rating (SIR) test. The relationship between functional gain and coupler gain was compared for the ITE and the higher rated OTE instruments. The difference in input received at the microphone locations of the two types of hearing aids was measured for 10 different subjects and compared to the functional gain data. It was concluded that (a) for persons with mild to moderately severe hearing losses, appropriately adjusted custom ITE fittings typically yield speech intelligibility that is equal to the better OTE fitting identified in a comparative evaluation; and (b) gain prescriptions for ITE hearing aids should be adjusted to account for the high-frequency emphasis associated with in-the-concha microphone placement.

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

2020 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. 215-223
Author(s):  
James R. Dornhoffer ◽  
Ted A. Meyer ◽  
Judy R. Dubno ◽  
Theodore R. McRackan
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Sound Field ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Middle Ear Implant ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Patient Reported Measures ◽  
Hearing Aid Benefit

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.

scholarly journals Analysis of the results of hearing aids fitting using the questionnaire «Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit Profile»

2015 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 32-33
Author(s):  
L. E. Golooanooa ◽  
E. V. Zhiunskaya ◽  
M. . Yu
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing ◽  
Hearing Aid Fitting ◽  
Bilateral Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aid Benefit

164 patients with moderate to severe ehronie bilateral sensorineural hearing loss were asked to fill in the Glasgow hearing aid benefit profile. Its usefulness was showed in eases of diffieult hearing aid fitting.

Short-Term and Long-Term Hearing Aid Benefit and User Satisfaction: A Comparison between Two Fitting Protocols

2007 ◽  
Vol 18 (06) ◽  
pp. 482-495 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lu-Feng Shi ◽  
Karen A. Doherty ◽  
Tammy M. Kordas ◽  
Joseph T. Pellegrino
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
User Satisfaction ◽  
Daily Life ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Hearing Aid Fitting ◽  
Speech In Noise ◽  
Noise Test ◽  
Hearing Aid Benefit

Currently published hearing aid fitting protocols recommend speech-in-noise testing and loudness measures, but it remains unclear how these measures affect hearing aid benefit and user satisfaction. This study compared two protocols in their effects on benefit and satisfaction. Protocol A included an electroacoustic analysis, real-ear measures, and hearing aid adjustments based on users' comments. Protocol B included all of Protocol A and a speech-in-noise test, loudness discomfort levels, and aided loudness. Thirty-two participants completed the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) and the Satisfaction with Amplification in Daily Life (SADL) at 45 days and three months post–initial fitting. Fewer hearing aid adjustments were made to the hearing aids for participants fitted with Protocol B than participants fitted with Protocol A, but final gains were similar for both groups. Although similar APHAB scores were obtained for both protocols, SADL scores decreased between 45 days and three months for Protocol A. Los protocoles de amplificación de auxiliares auditivo actualmente publicados recomiendan pruebas de lenguaje en ruido y mediciones de apreciación subjetiva de la intensidad (sonoridad), pero no está claro cómo estas mediciones afectan el beneficio de un auxiliar auditivo y la satisfacción del usuario. El estudio comparó dos protocolos en cuanto a sus efectos sobre beneficio y satisfacción. El Protocolo A incluyó un análisis electroacústico, mediciones de oído real y ajuste en el auxiliar auditivo basados en los comentarios del usuario. El Protocolo B incluyó todas las pruebas del Protocolo A, además de una prueba de audición en ruido, de niveles de molestia en la apreciación subjetiva de la intensidad y de sonoridad amplificada. Treinta y dos participantes completaron el Perfil Abreviado de Beneficio del Auxiliar Auditivo (APHAB) y la prueba de Satisfacción con la Amplificación en la Vida Diaria (SADL) a los 45 días y a los tres meses de la adaptación inicial. Tuvieron que hacerse menos ajustes en el audífono en los auxiliares auditivos de participantes adaptados con el Protocolo B, que en los participantes adaptados con el Protocolo A, pero las ganancias finales fueron similares en ambos grupos. Aunque se obtuvieron puntajes APHAB similares en ambos protocolos, los puntajes SADL disminuyeron entre los 45 días y los tres meses para el Protocolo A.

scholarly journals Differences in Sensation Level between the Widex SoundTracker and Two Real-Ear Analyzers

2013 ◽  
Vol 24 (08) ◽  
pp. 660-670 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kristi Oeding ◽  
Michael Valente
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Sensation Level ◽  
Software Application ◽  
Repeated Measures Design ◽  
Repeated Measures Analysis ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Mean Differences ◽  
Bilateral Sensorineural Hearing Loss

Background: SoundTracker is an algorithm in Widex's Compass fitting software that could potentially be used to estimate a patient's aided sensation level (SL). SoundTracker's accuracy of estimating a patient's SL has never been verified in comparison to SL measured with commercially available real-ear analyzers. Purpose: Determine whether statistically significant differences are present between the estimated SL of the Widex SoundTracker software application and the measured SL of the Audioscan Verifit and Frye 6500 real-ear analyzers at 500, 1000, 2000, and 4000 Hz. Research Design: This study used a randomized repeated measures design to determine differences in SL between SoundTracker and the Verifit and 6500. Study Sample: Ten subjects (N = 20 ears) were recruited who were experienced users of behind-the-ear hearing aids with conventional vented earmolds and had bilateral sensorineural hearing loss that was >30 dB HL below 1000 Hz and ≤70 dB HL to 4000 Hz. Data Collection and Analysis: Real-ear in-situ thresholds (dB sound pressure level [SPL]) and real-ear aided responses (REAR; dB SPL) were measured at 500, 1000, 2000, and 4000 Hz to determine differences in SL between SoundTracker, Verifit, and 6500. A three-factor repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was utilized to determine differences between method (real-ear analyzers and SoundTracker), analyzer (Verifit and 6500), and frequency (500, 1000, 2000, and 4000 Hz). Results: Mean differences in measured SL for the Verifit and 6500 were ≤2 dB when compared to the estimated SL using SoundTracker. A statistically significant difference in SL was present between the Verifit and SoundTracker at 2000 Hz (p < 0.01), but no significant differences were present at 500, 1000, and 4000 Hz. A statistically significant difference in SL was present between the 6500 and SoundTracker at 4000 Hz (p < 0.01), but no significant differences were present at 500, 1000, and 2000 Hz. Mean differences in measured SL between the real-ear analyzers (difference of SoundTracker SL minus Verifit SL compared to the difference of SoundTracker SL minus 6500 SL) were ≤2 dB with a statistically significant difference present at 2000 Hz (p < 0.01), but no statistically significant differences were present at 500, 1000, or 4000 Hz. Conclusions: Nearly 85% of the differences between the estimated SoundTracker SL and the measured SLs of the Verifit and 6500 were ≤2 dB. Despite some limitations of this study, SoundTracker could be useful as a counseling tool to illustrate to patients which sounds are audible or inaudible when unaided and aided.

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.

scholarly journals Comparison of In-Situ and Retrospective Self-Reports on Assessing Hearing Aid Outcomes

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yu-Hsiang Wu ◽  
Elizabeth Stangl ◽  
Octav Chipara ◽  
Anna Gudjonsdottir ◽  
Jacob Oleson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Outcome Data ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Data Collection And Analysis ◽  
Self Reports ◽  
Outcome Difference ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Ecological Momentary

Abstract Background Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) is a methodology involving repeated surveys to collect in-situ self-reports that describe respondents' current or recent experiences. Audiology literature comparing in-situ and retrospective self-reports is scarce. Purpose To compare the sensitivity of in-situ and retrospective self-reports in detecting the outcome difference between hearing aid technologies, and to determine the association between in-situ and retrospective self-reports. Research Design An observational study. Study Sample Thirty-nine older adults with hearing loss. Data Collection and Analysis The study was part of a larger clinical trial that compared the outcomes of a prototype hearing aid (denoted as HA1) and a commercially available device (HA2). In each trial condition, participants wore hearing aids for 4 weeks. Outcomes were measured using EMA and retrospective questionnaires. To ensure that the outcome data could be directly compared, the Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit Profile was administered as an in-situ self-report (denoted as EMA-GHABP) and as a retrospective questionnaire (retro-GHABP). Linear mixed models were used to determine if the EMA- and retro-GHABP could detect the outcome difference between HA1 and HA2. Correlation analyses were used to examine the association between EMA- and retro-GHABP. Results For the EMA-GHABP, HA2 had significantly higher (better) scores than HA1 in the GHABP subscales of benefit, residual disability, and satisfaction (p = 0.029–0.0015). In contrast, the difference in the retro-GHABP score between HA1 and HA2 was significant only in the satisfaction subscale (p = 0.0004). The correlations between the EMA- and retro-GHABP were significant in all subscales (p = 0.0004 to <0.0001). The strength of the association ranged from weak to moderate (r = 0.28–0.58). Finally, the exit interview indicated that 29 participants (74.4%) preferred HA2 over HA1. Conclusion The study suggests that in-situ self-reports collected using EMA could have a higher sensitivity than retrospective questionnaires. Therefore, EMA is worth considering in clinical trials that aim to compare the outcomes of different hearing aid technologies. The weak to moderate association between in-situ and retrospective self-reports suggests that these two types of measures assess different aspects of hearing aid outcomes.

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.

Gender Differences in Audiological Findings and Hearing Aid Benefit in 255 Individuals with Auditory Neuropathy Spectrum Disorder: A Retrospective Study

2016 ◽  
Vol 27 (10) ◽  
pp. 839-845 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vijaya Kumar Narne ◽  
Prashanth Prabhu ◽  
Hunsur S. Chandan ◽  
Mahadeva Deepthi
Keyword(s):  
Gender Differences ◽  
Retrospective Study ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Otoacoustic Emissions ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Auditory Neuropathy ◽  
Spectrum Disorder ◽  
Auditory Neuropathy Spectrum Disorder ◽  
Acoustic Reflexes ◽  
Hearing Aid Benefit

Background: There are many studies reported in the literature that have summarized audiological findings and possible rehabilitation in individuals with auditory neuropathy spectrum disorder (ANSD). However, there are very few studies that have attempted to delineate the gender differences in audiological characteristics and hearing aid benefit in individuals with ANSD. Purpose: The study aimed to explore the differences between males and females in terms of demographic details, audiogram, speech identification scores, otoacoustic emissions, acoustic reflexes, long latency responses, and hearing aid benefit. Research Design: A retrospective study. Study Sample: A total of 255 individuals diagnosed with ANSD were selected for the study. The study included 137 females and 88 males. Data Collection and Analysis: The demographic details, results of diagnostic audiological testing, and hearing aid benefit were analyzed retrospectively. The differences in findings across gender were compared. Results: The study shows that females have a relatively higher degree of hearing loss and that the majority of females show a rising type of audiometric configuration. The study shows that females have poorer speech perception abilities and experience limited benefits from hearing aids compared to males. Conclusions: The results of the study show that there are gender differences in audiological findings and hearing aid benefits in individuals with ANSD. However, well-controlled prospective studies are essential to confirm the results obtained and to identify the possible mechanisms underlying the gender differences.

scholarly journals The use of speech sentence audiometry in a free sound field

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 36-39
Author(s):  
Mariya Yu. Boboshko ◽  
Irina P. Berdnikova ◽  
Natalya V. Maltzeva
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Sensorineural Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Speech Intelligibility ◽  
Normative Data ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Sound Field ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Hearing Aid Benefit

Objectives -to determine the normative data of sentence speech intelligibility in a free sound field and to estimate the applicability of the Russian Matrix Sentence test (RuMatrix) for assessment of the hearing aid fitting benefit. Material and methods. 10 people with normal hearing and 28 users of hearing aids with moderate to severe sensorineural hearing loss were involved in the study. RuMatrix test both in quiet and in noise was performed in a free sound field. All patients filled in the COSI questionnaire. Results. The hearing impaired patients were divided into two subgroups: the 1st with high and the 2nd with low hearing aid benefit, according to the COSI questionnaire. In the 1st subgroup, the threshold for the sentence intelligibility in quiet was 34.9 ± 6.4 dB SPL, and in noise -3.3 ± 1.4 dB SNR, in the 2nd subgroup 41.7 ± 11.5 dB SPL and 0.15 ± 3.45 dB SNR, respectively. The significant difference between the data of both subgroups and the norm was registered (p

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document