PDF herunterladen
J Am Acad Audiol 2020; 31(10): 746-762
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1719133
Research Article

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

Yu-Hsiang Wu
1   Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa
,
Elizabeth Stangl
1   Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa
,
Octav Chipara
2   Department of Computer Science, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa
,
Anna Gudjonsdottir
3   Department of Biostatistics, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa
,
Jacob Oleson
3   Department of Biostatistics, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa
,
Ruth Bentler
1   Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa
› Institutsangaben Funding 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).
› Weitere Informationen
   Lizenzen und Reprints

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.

Keywords

Outcome measures - hearing aids - ecological momentary assessment

Note

Portions of this paper were presented at the Academy Research Conference of the American Academy of Audiology, March 27, 2019, Columbus, OH.


Supplementary Material



Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 14. Februar 2020

Angenommen: 10. April 2020

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
15. Dezember 2020

© 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

 

  • References

  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Bradburn NM, Rips LJ, Shevell SK. Answering autobiographical questions: the impact of memory and inference on surveys. Science 1987; 236 (4798): 157-161
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Shiffman S, Stone AA, Hufford MR. Ecological momentary assessment. Annu Rev Clin Psychol 2008; 4: 1-32
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Preminger JE, Cunningham DR. Case-study analysis of various field study measures. J Am Acad Audiol 2003; 14 (01) 39-55
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Cox RM, Alexander GC. Measuring Satisfaction with Amplification in Daily Life: the SADL scale. Ear Hear 1999; 20 (04) 306-320
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Wright JG, Young NL. A comparison of different indices of responsiveness. J Clin Epidemiol 1997; 50 (03) 239-246
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Robinson MD, Clore GL. Belief and feeling: evidence for an accessibility model of emotional self-report. Psychol Bull 2002; 128 (06) 934-960
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 McCormack A, Fortnum H. Why do people fitted with hearing aids not wear them?. Int J Audiol 2013; 52 (05) 360-368
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Keidser G, Dillon H, Flax M, Ching T, Brewer S. The NAL-NL2 prescription procedure. Audiology Res 2011; 1 (01) e24
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Cox RM, Alexander GC. The abbreviated profile of hearing aid benefit. Ear Hear 1995; 16 (02) 176-186
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Ventry IM, Weinstein BE. The Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly: a new tool. Ear Hear 1982; 3 (03) 128-134
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Gatehouse S, Noble W. The speech, spatial and qualities of hearing scale (SSQ). Int J Audiol 2004; 43 (02) 85-99
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    Google Scholar
  • 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
    Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    Google Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar