Abstract
Background Recently, we developed a hearing-related lifestyle questionnaire (HEARLI-Q), which
asks respondents to rate their hearing aid (HA) satisfaction in 23 everyday listening
situations. It is unknown how HA satisfaction on the retrospective HEARLI-Q scale
compares with HA satisfaction measured on the same scale implemented in Ecological
Momentary Assessment (EMA).
Purpose To learn how retrospective (HEARLI-Q) and in situ (EMA) assessments can complement
each other.
Research Design An observational study.
Study Sample Twenty-one experienced HA users.
Data Collection and Analysis The participants first filled out the HEARLI-Q questionnaire, followed by a 1-week
EMA trial using their own HAs. HA satisfaction ratings were compared between the two
questionnaires and the underlying drivers of discrepancies in HA satisfaction ratings
were evaluated.
Results HA satisfaction ratings were significantly higher in EMA for speech communication
with one or several people. Hearing difficulty in these situations was rated higher
in HEARLI-Q than in EMA, but occurrence of those difficult listening situations was
also rated to be lower. When comparing only the situations that occur on daily or
weekly basis, the two questionnaires had similar HA satisfaction ratings.
Conclusions Lower occurrence of difficult listening situations seems to be the key driver of
discrepancies in HA satisfaction ratings between EMA and HEARLI-Q. The advantage of
EMA is that it provides insight into an individual's day-to-day life and is not prone
to memory bias. HEARLI-Q, on the other hand, can capture situations that occur infrequently
or are inconvenient to report in the moment. Administering HEARLI-Q and EMA in combination
could give a more holistic view of HA satisfaction.
Keywords
hearing aid satisfaction - EMA - retrospective report
