Comparison of In-Situ and Retrospective Self-Reports on Assessing Hearing Aid OutcomesFunding The present research was part of a larger clinical trial. The larger clinical trial was supported by a manufacturer that chose not to disclose its identifying information. The present research was supported by National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (R01DC015997 and P50DC000242) and National Science Foundation (SCH 1838830).
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.
Portions of this paper were presented at the Academy Research Conference of the American Academy of Audiology, March 27, 2019, Columbus, OH.
Received: 14 February 2020
Accepted: 10 April 2020
15 December 2020 (online)
© 2020. American Academy of Audiology. This article is published by Thieme.
Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA
- 1 Cox RM, Johnson JA, Xu J. Impact of advanced hearing aid technology on speech understanding for older listeners with mild to moderate, adult-onset, sensorineural hearing loss. Gerontology 2014; 60 (06) 557-568
- 2 Humes LE, Rogers SE, Quigley TM, Main AK, Kinney DL, Herring C. The effects of service-delivery model and purchase price on hearing-aid outcomes in older adults: a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trial. Am J Audiol 2017; 26 (01) 53-79
- 3 Humes LE, Ahlstrom JB, Bratt GW, Peek BF. Studies of hearing aid outcome measures in older adults: a comparison of technologies and an examination of individual differences. Semin Hear 2009; 30: 112-128
- 4 Johnson JA, Cox RM, Alexander GC. Development of APHAB norms for WDRC hearing aids and comparisons with original norms. Ear Hear 2010; 31 (01) 47-55
- 5 Larson VD, Williams DW, Henderson WG. et al; NIDCD/VA Hearing Aid Clinical Trial Group. Efficacy of 3 commonly used hearing aid circuits: a crossover trial. JAMA 2000; 284 (14) 1806-1813
- 6 Walden BE, Surr RK, Cord MT, Edwards B, Olson L. Comparison of benefits provided by different hearing aid technologies. J Am Acad Audiol 2000; 11 (10) 540-560
- 7 Cord MT, Surr RK, Walden BE, Olson L. Performance of directional microphone hearing aids in everyday life. J Am Acad Audiol 2002; 13 (06) 295-307
- 8 Cord MT, Surr RK, Walden BE, Dyrlund O. Relationship between laboratory measures of directional advantage and everyday success with directional microphone hearing aids. J Am Acad Audiol 2004; 15 (05) 353-364
- 9 Surr RK, Walden BE, Cord MT, Olson L. Influence of environmental factors on hearing aid microphone preference. J Am Acad Audiol 2002; 13 (06) 308-322
- 10 Palmer CV, Bentler R, Mueller HG. Amplification with digital noise reduction and the perception of annoying and aversive sounds. Trends Amplif 2006; 10 (02) 95-104
- 11 Gnewikow D, Ricketts T, Bratt GW, Mutchler LC. Real-world benefit from directional microphone hearing aids. J Rehabil Res Dev 2009; 46 (05) 603-618
- 12 Humes LE, Ahlstrom JB, Bratt GW, Peek BF. Studies of hearing-aid outcome measures in older adults: a comparison of technologies and an examination of individual differences. Semin Hear 2009; 30: 112-128
- 13 Bentler RA. Effectiveness of directional microphones and noise reduction schemes in hearing aids: a systematic review of the evidence. J Am Acad Audiol 2005; 16 (07) 473-484
- 14 Bentler R, Wu YH, Kettel J, Hurtig R. Digital noise reduction: outcomes from laboratory and field studies. Int J Audiol 2008; 47 (08) 447-460
- 15 Johnson JA, Xu J, Cox RM. Impact of hearing aid technology on outcomes in daily life II: speech understanding and listening effort. Ear Hear 2016; 37 (05) 529-540
- 16 Johnson JA, Xu J, Cox RM. Impact of hearing aid technology on outcomes in daily life III: localization. Ear Hear 2017; 38 (06) 746-759
- 17 Wu YH, Stangl E, Chipara O, Hasan SS, DeVries S, Oleson J. Efficacy and effectiveness of advanced hearing aid directional and noise reduction technologies for older adults with mild to moderate hearing loss. Ear Hear 2019; 40 (04) 805-822
- 18 Bradburn NM, Rips LJ, Shevell SK. Answering autobiographical questions: the impact of memory and inference on surveys. Science 1987; 236 (4798): 157-161
- 19 Shiffman S, Stone AA, Hufford MR. Ecological momentary assessment. Annu Rev Clin Psychol 2008; 4: 1-32
- 20 Preminger JE, Cunningham DR. Case-study analysis of various field study measures. J Am Acad Audiol 2003; 14 (01) 39-55
- 21 Walden BE, Surr RK, Cord MT, Dyrlund O. Predicting hearing aid microphone preference in everyday listening. J Am Acad Audiol 2004; 15 (05) 365-396
- 22 Wu YH, Bentler RA. Impact of visual cues on directional benefit and preference: Part II--field tests. Ear Hear 2010; 31 (01) 35-46
- 23 Wu YH, Bentler RA. Do older adults have social lifestyles that place fewer demands on hearing?. J Am Acad Audiol 2012; 23 (09) 697-711
- 24 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
- 25 Timmer BHB, Hickson L, Launer S. Do hearing aids address real-world hearing difficulties for adults with mild hearing impairment? Results from a pilot study using ecological momentary assessment. Trends Hear 2018; 22: 2331216518783608
- 26 Cox RM, Alexander GC. Measuring Satisfaction with Amplification in Daily Life: the SADL scale. Ear Hear 1999; 20 (04) 306-320
- 27 Wright JG, Young NL. A comparison of different indices of responsiveness. J Clin Epidemiol 1997; 50 (03) 239-246
- 28 Robinson MD, Clore GL. Belief and feeling: evidence for an accessibility model of emotional self-report. Psychol Bull 2002; 128 (06) 934-960
- 29 Conner TS, Barrett LF. Trends in ambulatory self-report: the role of momentary experience in psychosomatic medicine. Psychosom Med 2012; 74 (04) 327-337
- 30 Plyler PN, Hill AB, Trine TD. The effects of expansion on the objective and subjective performance of hearing instrument users. J Am Acad Audiol 2005; 16 (02) 101-113
- 31 McCormack A, Fortnum H. Why do people fitted with hearing aids not wear them?. Int J Audiol 2013; 52 (05) 360-368
- 32 Keidser G, Dillon H, Flax M, Ching T, Brewer S. The NAL-NL2 prescription procedure. Audiology Res 2011; 1 (01) e24
- 33 Xu J, Cox RM. Recording and evaluation of an American dialect version of the Four Alternative Auditory Feature test. J Am Acad Audiol 2014; 25 (08) 737-745
- 34 Foster JR, Haggard MP. The Four Alternative Auditory Feature Test (FAAF)--linguistic and psychometric properties of the material with normative data in noise. Br J Audiol 1987; 21 (03) 165-174
- 35 Gatehouse S, Naylor G, Elberling C. Linear and nonlinear hearing aid fittings--1. Patterns of benefit. Int J Audiol 2006; 45 (03) 130-152
- 36 Cox RM, Alexander GC. The abbreviated profile of hearing aid benefit. Ear Hear 1995; 16 (02) 176-186
- 37 Newman CW, Weinstein BE, Jacobson GP, Hug GA. The hearing handicap inventory for adults: psychometric adequacy and audiometric correlates. Ear Hear 1990; 11 (06) 430-433
- 38 Ventry IM, Weinstein BE. The Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly: a new tool. Ear Hear 1982; 3 (03) 128-134
- 39 Gatehouse S, Noble W. The speech, spatial and qualities of hearing scale (SSQ). Int J Audiol 2004; 43 (02) 85-99
- 40 Gatehouse S. Glasgow hearing aid benefit profile: derivation and validation of a client-centered outcome measure for hearing aid services. J Am Acad Audiol 1999; 10: 103
- 41 Hasan SS, Lai F, Chipara O, Wu YH. AudioSense: Enabling real-time evaluation of hearing aid technology in-situ. Paper presented at: The 26th IEEE International Symposium on Computer-Based Medical Systems; Porto, Portugal; June 20–June 22, 2013
- 42 Cox RM, Johnson JA, Xu J. Impact of hearing aid technology on outcomes in daily life I: the patients' perspective. Ear Hear 2016; 37 (04) e224-e237
- 43 Naylor G, Öberg M, Wänström G, Lunner T. Exploring the effects of the narrative embodied in the hearing aid fitting process on treatment outcomes. Ear Hear 2015; 36 (05) 517-526
- 44 Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J Roy Stat Soc B Met 1995; 57: 289-300
- 45 Oleson JJ, Brown GD, McCreery R. Essential statistical concepts for research in speech, language, and hearing sciences. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2019; 62 (03) 489-497
- 46 Gwaltney CJ, Shields AL, Shiffman S. Equivalence of electronic and paper-and-pencil administration of patient-reported outcome measures: a meta-analytic review. Value Health 2008; 11 (02) 322-333
- 47 Humes LE, Halling D, Coughlin M. Reliability and stability of various hearing-aid outcome measures in a group of elderly hearing-aid wearers. J Speech Hear Res 1996; 39 (05) 923-935
- 48 Schum DJ. Test-retest reliability of a shortened version of the hearing aid performance inventory. J Am Acad Audiol 1993; 4 (01) 18-21
- 49 Meyer C, Hickson L, Lovelock K, Lampert M, Khan A. An investigation of factors that influence help-seeking for hearing impairment in older adults. Int J Audiol 2014; 53 (Suppl. 01) S3-S17