PDF herunterladen
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · J Am Acad Audiol 2024; 35(01/02): 030-039
DOI: 10.1055/a-2265-9418
Research Article

Measuring Hearing Aid Satisfaction in Everyday Listening Situations: Retrospective and In Situ Assessments Complement Each Other

Dina Lelic 
1   WS Audiology, Lynge, Denmark
,
Florian Wolters
2   ORCA Europe, WS Audiology, Stockholm, Sweden
,
Nadja Schinkel-Bielefeld
3   WS Audiology, Erlangen, Germany
› Institutsangaben
› Weitere Informationen
Auch verfügbar auf
   Lizenzen und Reprints

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

Supplementary Material



Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 12. April 2023

Angenommen: 19. November 2023

Accepted Manuscript online:
09. Februar 2024

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
28. November 2024

© 2024. American Academy of Audiology. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Wong LL, Hickson L, McPherson B. Hearing aid satisfaction: what does research from the past 20 years say?. Trends Amplif 2003; 7 (04) 117-161
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 2 Hipp L, Bünning M, Munnes S, Sauermann A. Problems and pitfalls of retrospective survey questions in COVID-19 studies. Surv Res Methods 2020; 14 (02) 109-114
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 3 Lelic D, Wolters F, Herrlin P, Smeds K. Assessment of hearing-related lifestyle based on the common sound scenarios framework. Am J Audiol 2022; 31 (04) 1299-1311
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 4 Wolters F, Smeds K, Schmidt E, Christensen EK, Norup C. Common sound scenarios: a context-driven categorization of everyday sound environments for application in hearing-device research. J Am Acad Audiol 2016; 27 (07) 527-540
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 5 Althubaiti A. Information bias in health research: definition, pitfalls, and adjustment methods. J Multidiscip Healthc 2016; 9: 211-217
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 6 Bradburn NM, Rips LJ, Shevell SK. Answering autobiographical questions: the impact of memory and inference on surveys. Science 1987; 236 (4798) 157-161
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 7 Stone AA, Shiffman S. Capturing momentary, self-report data: a proposal for reporting guidelines. Ann Behav Med 2002; 24 (03) 236-243
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 8 Holube I, von Gablenz P, Bitzer J. Ecological momentary assessment in hearing research: current state, challenges, and future directions. Ear Hear 2020; 41 (Suppl. 01) 79S-90S
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 9 Schinkel-Bielefeld N, Kunz P, Zutz A, Buder B. Evaluation of hearing aids in everyday life using ecological momentary assessment: what situations are we missing?. Am J Audiol 2020; 29 (3S): 591-609
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 10 Wu Y-H, Xu J, Stangl E. et al. Why ecological momentary assessment surveys go incomplete: when it happens and how it impacts data. J Am Acad Audiol 2021; 32 (01) 16-26
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 11 Lelic D, Nielsen J, Parker D, Marchman Rønne F. Critical hearing experiences manifest differently across individuals: insights from hearing aid data captured in real-life moments. Int J Audiol 2022; 61 (05) 428-436
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 12 Janssens KAM, Bos EH, Rosmalen JGM, Wichers MC, Riese H. A qualitative approach to guide choices for designing a diary study. BMC Med Res Methodol 2018; 18 (01) 140
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 13 Beal DJ, Weiss HM. Methods of ecological momentary assessment in organizational research. Organ Res Methods 2003; 6 (04) 440-464
    CrossrefSuche in Google Scholar
  • 14 Galvez G, Turbin MB, Thielman EJ, Istvan JA, Andrews JA, Henry JA. Feasibility of ecological momentary assessment of hearing difficulties encountered by hearing aid users. Ear Hear 2012; 33 (04) 497-507
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 15 Wu YH, Stangl E, Chipara O, Gudjonsdottir A, Oleson J, Bentler R. Comparison of in-situ and retrospective self-reports on assessing hearing aid outcomes. J Am Acad Audiol 2020; 31 (10) 746-762
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 16 Lelic D, Parker D, Herrlin P, Wolters F, Smeds K. Focusing on positive listening experiences improves hearing aid outcomes in experienced hearing aid users. Int J Audiol 2023; 63 (06) 420-430
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 17 von Gablenz P, Kowalk U, Bitzer J, Meis M, Holube I. Individual hearing aid benefit in real life evaluated using ecological momentary assessment. Trends Hear 2021; 25: 2331216521990288
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 18 Jensen NS, Hau O, Lelic D, Herrlin P, Wolters F, Smeds K. Evaluation of auditory reality and hearing aids using an ecological momentary assessment (EMA) Approach. Proceedings of the 23rd International Congress on Acoustics. 2019
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 19 Smeds K, Gotowiec S, Wolters F, Herrlin P, Larsson J, Dahlquist M. Selecting scenarios for hearing-related laboratory testing. Ear Hear 2020; 41 (Suppl. 01) 20S-30S
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 20 Schwarz N, Oyserman D. Asking questions about behavior: cognition, communication, and questionnaire construction. Am J Eval 2001; 22 (02) 127-160
    CrossrefSuche in Google Scholar
  • 21 Andersson KE, Andersen LS, Christensen JH, Neher T. Assessing real-life benefit from hearing-aid noise management: SSQ12 questionnaire versus ecological momentary assessment with acoustic data-logging. Am J Audiol 2021; 30 (01) 93-104
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 22 Ganzach Y, Yaor E. The retrospective evaluation of positive and negative affect. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 2019; 45 (01) 93-104
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 23 Brown NR. Encoding, representing, and estimating event frequencies: a multiple strategy perspective. In: Sedlmeier P, Tilmann B. eds. Frequency Processing and Cognition. New York: Oxford University Press; 2002
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 24 Blair E, Burton S. Cognitive processes used by survey respondents to answer behavioral frequency questions. J Consum Res 1987; 14 (02) 280-288
    CrossrefSuche in Google Scholar
  • 25 Wu YH, Stangl E, Chipara O, Zhang X. Test-retest reliability of ecological momentary assessment in audiology research. J Am Acad Audiol 2020; 31 (08) 599-612
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 26 Vestergaard MD. Self-report outcome in new hearing-aid users: Longitudinal trends and relationships between subjective measures of benefit and satisfaction. Int J Audiol 2006; 45 (07) 382-392
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar