Download PDF
J Am Acad Audiol 2001; 12(02): 64-79
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1745582
Original Article

Technology, Expectations, and Adjustment to Hearing Loss: Predictors of Hearing Aid Outcome

J. Christopher K. Jerram
Audiology Section, Department of Physiology, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
,
Suzanne C. Purdy
Audiology Section, Department of Physiology, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand; National Acoustic Laboratories, Sydney, Australia
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
  PDF Download  Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

This study examined the influence of technology, demographic factors, and prefitting expectations, attitudes, and adjustment to hearing loss on hearing aid outcome. Clients obtaining new hearing aids completed questionnaires measuring personal adjustment to hearing loss, expectations of and attitudes toward hearing aids, and hearing aid benefit. Eighty-one percent of the 200 subjects completing the prefitting questionnaires returned questionnaires evaluating hearing aid outcome. Factors affecting hearing aid use, overall satisfaction, and benefit were investigated using regression analyses. Higher use time was associated with higher prefitting expectations and greater acceptance of hearing loss. Greater benefit in easy and difficult listening situations was predicted by higher prefitting expectations. Multiplememory hearing aids produced higher satisfaction. Benefit was greater for multiple-memory, multiple-channel, and wide dynamic range compression aids. Findings were consistent with previous studies showing positive outcomes for newer technologies but also showed that two subjective factors, prefitting hearing aid expectations and acceptance of hearing loss, significantly influenced hearing aid outcome.

Abbreviations: APHAB = Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit, BTE = behind the ear, CIC = completely in the canal, CPHI = Communication Profile for the Hearing Impaired, HAPI = Hearing Aid Performance Inventory, HARQ = Hearing Attitudes in Rehabilitation Questionnaire, HHIE = Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly, HPI = Hearing Performance Inventory, ITC = in the canal, ITE = in the ear, MAPHAB = Modified Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit, MELLI = multiple environmental listening utility, MPAS = Modified Personal Adjustment Scale, PHAB = Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit, SADL = Satisfaction with Amplification in Daily Living, WDRC = wide dynamic range compression

Key Words

Attitude - benefit - expectations - hearing aid - hearing aid use - personal adjustment - questionnaire - satisfaction - technology


Publication History

Article published online:
28 February 2022

© 2001. 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

  • Arlinger S, Billermark E. (1999). One year follow-up of users of a digital hearing aid. Br J Audio! 33:223–232.
  • Arlinger S, Billermark E, Oberg M, Lunner T, Hellgren J. (1998). Clinical trial of a digital hearing aid. Scand Audio! 27:51–61.
  • Arnold P, MacKenzie I. (1998). Rejection of hearing aids: a critical review. J Audiol Med 7:173–199.
  • Badley EM, Lee J. (1987a). Impairment, disability, and the ICIDH (International Classification oflmpairments, Disabilities, and Handicaps) model. 1: the relationship between impairment and disability. lnt Rehabil Med 8:113–117.
  • Badley EM, Lee J. (1987b). Impairment, disability, and the ICIDH model. III: underlying disease, impairment, and disability. Int Rehabil Med 8:174–181.
  • Badley EM, Lee J, Wood PH. (1987). Impairment, disability, and the ICIDH (International Classification of Impairments, Disabilities, and Handicaps) model. II: the nature of the underlying condition and patterns of impair­ ment. lnt Rehabil Med 8:118–124.
  • Bentler RA, Niebuhr DP, Getta JP, Anderson CV. (1993). Longitudinal study of hearing aid effectiveness II. Subjective measures. J Speech Hear Res 36:820–831.
  • Berninger E, Karlsson KK. (1999). Clinical study of Widex Senso on first-time hearing aid users. Scand Audiol 28:117–125.
  • Berninger E, Nordstrom I. (1997). Multiple memory hearing aid-consistency of program-usage in real-world listening situations. Scand Audiol 26:252–256.
  • Bridges JA, Bentler RA. (1998). Relating hearing aid use to well-being amongst older adults. Hear J 51:39–44.
  • Brooks DN. (1979). Hearing aid use and the effects of counselling. Aust J Audiol 1:1–6.
  • Brooks DN. (1984). Binaural benefit-when and how much? Scand Audiol 10:237–241.
  • Brooks DN. (1985). Factors relating to the under-use of postaural hearing aids. Br J Audio/19:211–217.
  • Brooks DN. (1989). The effect of attitude on benefit obtained from hearing aids. Br J Audiol23:3–11.
  • Brooks DN. (1990). Measures for the assessment of hearing aid provision and rehabilitation. Br J Audiol 24:229–233.
  • Brooks DN. (1994). Some factors influencing choice of type of hearing aid in the UK: behind-the-ear or in-the-ear. Br J Audiol 28:91–98.
  • Brooks DN, Hallam RS. (1998). Attitudes to hearing difficulty and hearing aids and the outcome of audiological rehabilitation. Br J Audiol 32:217–226.
  • Brooks DN, Johnson DI. (1981). Pre-issue assessment and counselling as a component of hearing aid provision. Br J Audiol15:13–19.
  • Brown MA, Munford A. (1984). Rehabilitation of post-MI depression and psychological invalidism: a pilot study. Int J Psychiatr Med 13:291–298.
  • Burke W, Wesolowski M, Zencius A. (1988). Long term programs in head injury rehabilitation. Cogn Rehabil 6:38–41.
  • Byrne D. (1996). Hearing aid selection for the 1990'swhere to? J Am Acad Audiol 7:77–97.
  • Cohn ES. (1999). Hearing loss with aging: presbycusis. Clin Geriatr Med 15:145–161.
  • Corso JF. (1987). Sensory-perceptual processes and ageing. Ann Rev Gerontal Geriatr 7:29–55.
  • Cox RM, Alexander GC. (1995). The Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit. Ear Hear 16:176–186.
  • Cox RM, Alexander GC. (1999). Hearing satisfaction in daily life: the SADL scale. Ear Hear 20:306–320.
  • Cox RM, Alexander GC, Gray G. (1999). Personality and the subjective assessment of hearing aids. J Am Acad Audiol 10:1-13.
  • Cox RM, Gilmore C. (1990). Development of the Profile of Hearing Aid Performance (PHAP). J Speech Hear Res 33:343–357.
  • Cox RM, Gilmore C, Alexander GC. (1991). Comparison of two questionnaires for patient-assessed hearing aid benefit. J AmAcadAudiol2:134–145.
  • Cox RM, Rivera IM. (1992). Predictability and reliability of hearing aid benefit measured using the PHAB. J Am Acad Audiol 3:242–254.
  • Crandell C. (1998). Hearing aids: their effect on functional health status. Hear J 5:22–30.
  • Cronbach LJ. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 16:297–334.
  • Crowley HJ, Nabelek IV. (1996). Estimation of client­ assessed hearing aid performance based upon unaided variables. J Speech Hear Res 39:19–27.
  • Day GA, Browning GG, Gatehouse S. (1988). Benefit from binaural hearing aids in individuals with a severe hearing impairment. Br J Audiol 22:273–277.
  • Demorest ME, Erdman SA. (1986). Scale composition and item analysis of the Communication Profile for the Hearing Impaired. J Speech Hear Res 29:515–535.
  • Demorest ME, Erdman SA. (1987). Development of the Communication Profile for the Hearing Impaired. J Speech Hear Disord 52:129–143.
  • Demorest ME, Erdman DA. (1989). Factor structure of the Communication Profile for the Hearing Impaired. J Speech Hear Disord 54:541–549.
  • Dillon H. (1996). Compression? Yes, but for low or high frequencies, for low or high intensities, and with what response times? Ear Hear 17:287–307.
  • Dillon H, Birtles G, Lovegrove R. (1999). Measuring the outcomes of a national rehabilitation program: normative data for the Client Oriented Scale of Improvement (COSI) and the Hearing Aid User's Questionnaire (HAUQ). J Am Acad Audiol10:67–79.
  • Erdman SA, Demorest ME. (1998). Adjustment to hearing impairment II: audiological and demographic correlates. J Speech Lang Hear Res 41:123–136.
  • Evenhuis HM. (1995). Medical aspects of ageing in a population with intellectual disability: II. Hearing impairment. J Intellect Disabil Res 39:27–33.
  • Garstecki DC, Erler SF. (1998). Hearing loss, control, and demographic factors influencing hearing aid use among older adults. J Speech Lang Hear Res 41:527–537.
  • Gatehouse S. (1990). Factors that influence the benefit from amplification in the elderly. Acta Otolaryngol Suppl (Stockh) 47:262–268.
  • Gatehouse S. (1994). Components and determinants of hearing aid benefit. Ear Hear 15:30–49.
  • Giolas TG, Owens E, Lamb SH, Schubert ED. (1979). Hearing Performance Inventory. J Speech Hear Res 44:169–195.
  • Hallam RS, Brooks DN. (1996). Development of the Hearing Attitudes in Rehabilitation Questionnaire. Br J Audiol 30:199–213.
  • Hetu R. (1996). The stigma attached to hearing impairment. Scand Audiol 25(Suppl 43):12–24.
  • Hickson L, Hamilton L, Orange SP. (1986). Factors associated with hearing aid use. Aust J Audiol 8:37–41.
  • Hickson L, Timm M, Worral L. (1999). Hearing aid fitting: outcomes for older adults. Aust J Audiol21:19–23.
  • Humes LE. (1999). Dimensions of hearing aid outcome. J Am Acad Audiol 10:26–39.
  • Humes LE, Halling D, Coughlin M. (1996). Reliability and stability of various hearing aid outcome measures in a group of elderly hearing aid wearers. J Speech Hear Res 39:923–935.
  • Humes LE, Christenson L, Thomas T, Bess FH, Hedley­ Willams A, Bentler R. (1999). A comparison of the aided performance and benefit provided by a linear and a two channel hearing aid. J Speech Hear Res 42:65–79.
  • Hyde ML, Riko K. (1994). A decision-analytic approach to audiological rehabilitation. J Acad Rehabil Audiol Monogr 27:337–374.
  • Jenstad LM, Seewald RC, Cornelisse LE, Shantz J. (1999). Comparison oflinear gain and wide dynamic range com­ pression hearing aid circuits: aided speech perception measures. Ear Hear 20:117–126.
  • Jerram JCK, Purdy SC. (1997). Evaluation of hearing aid benefit using the Shortened Hearing Aid Performance Inventory. J Am Acad Audiol 8:18–26.
  • Jerram JCK, Purdy SC. (1999). Measuring personal adjustment to hearing loss using a shortened version of the Communication Profile for the Hearing Impaired. Aust J Audiol 21:1–8.
  • Kam CS, Wong LN. ( 1999). Comparison of performance with wide dynamic range compression and linear amplification. J Am Acad Audiol 10:445–457.
  • Kapteyn TS, Wijkel D, Hackenitz E. (1997). The effects of involvement of the general practitioner and guidance of the hearing-impaired on hearing-aid use. Br J Audiol 31:399–407.
  • Kates JM, Weiss MR. (1996). A comparison of hearing aid array processing techniques. J Acoust Soc Am 99:138–148.
  • Keidser G. (1995). The relationship between listening conditions and altemative amplification schemes for multiple memory hearing aids. Ear Hear 16:575–586.
  • Keller SD, Ware JE Jr, Gandek B, Aaronson NK, Alonso J, Apolone G, Bjorner JB, Brazier J, Bullinger M, Fukuhara S, Kaasa S, Leplege A, Sanson-Fisher RW, Sullivan M, Wood-Dauphinee S. (1998). Testing the equiv­ alence of translations of widely used response choice labels: results from the IQOLA Project. International Quality of Life Assessment. J Clin Epidemiol 51:933–944.
  • Kiessling J. (1996). Hearing instruments: a look into the future. Folia Phoniatr Logop 48:156–162.
  • Kochkin S. ( 1993 I. MarkeTrak III identifies key factors in determining customer satisfaction. Hear J 46:39–44.
  • Kochkin S. (1995). MarkeTrak IV Norms: Subjective Measures of Satisfaction and Benefit. Presented at the American Academy of Audiology Annual Convention, Dallas, TX.
  • Kochkin S. ( 1996). Customer satisfaction and subjective benefit with high performance hearing aids. Hear Rev 3:16–26.
  • Kochkin S. (19991. From Customer Satisfaction to Customer Bliss. Presented at Phonak Small Business Seminar, Fiji.
  • Kochkin S. (2000 I. MarkeTrak V: "Why my hearing aids are in the drawer": the consumers' perspective. Hear J 53:34–42.
  • Kochkin S, Rogin CM. (2000). Quantifying the obvious: the impact of hearing instruments on quality of life. Hear Rev 7:6–34.
  • Kricos PB, Lesner SA, Sandridge SA, Yanke RB. (1987). Perceived benefits of amplification as a function of central auditory status in the elderly. Ear Hear 8:337–342.
  • Kricos PB, Lesner SA, Sandridge SA. (1991). Expectations of older adults regarding the use of hearing aids. J Am Acad Audiol 2:129–133.
  • Kuk FK, Pape NM. ( 1993). Relative satisfaction for frequency responses selected with a Simplex procedure in different listening conditions. J Speech Hear Res 36:168–177.
  • Leeuw AR, Dreschler WA. (1991). Advantages of directional hearing aid microphones related to room acoustics. Audiology 30:330–344.
  • Levitt H, Resnick SB. (1978). Speech reception by the hearing impaired: methods of testing and development of materials. Scand Audiol Suppl6:107–129.
  • May J. (1986). Personal adjustment to hearing loss. Hear Rehabil Q 11:12–13.
  • McCarthy PA, Montgomery AA, Mueller HG. (1990). Decision making in rehabilitative audiology. J Am Acad Audiol 1:23–30.
  • McKenzie AR, Rice CG. (1990). Binaural hearing aids for high-frequency hearing loss. Br J Audiol 24:329–334.
  • Meredith R, Stephens D. (1993). In-the-ear or behind­the-ear hearing aids in the elderly. Scand Audiol 22: 211–216.
  • Mueller HG. (1992). Insertion gain measurements. In: Mueller HG, Hawkins DB, Northern JL, eds. Probe Microphone Measurements Hearing Aid Selection and Assessment. San Diego: Singular, 113–143.
  • Mulrow CD, Aguilar C, Endicott JE, Tuley MR, Velez R, Charlip WS, Rhodes MC, Hill JA, DeNino LA. (1990). Quality-of-life changes and hearing impairment. A ran­ domized trial. Ann Intern Med 113:188–194.
  • Mulrow CD, Tuley MR, Aguilar C. (1992). Correlates of successful hearing aid use in older adults. Ear Hear 13: 108–113.
  • Noble W. ( 1998). Self-Assessment of Hearing and Related Functions. London: Whurr.
  • Parving A, Philip B. (1991). Use and benefit of hearing aids in the tenth decade and beyond. Audiology 30:61–69.
  • Preston CC, Colman AM. (2000). Optimal number of response categories in rating scales: reliability, validity, discriminating power, and respondent preferences. Acta Psycho1104:1–15.
  • Preves DA, Sammeth CA, Wynne MK. (1999). Field trial evaluations of a switched directional/omindirectional in­ the-ear microphone. J Am Acad Audiol 10:273–284.
  • Purdy SC, Jerram JCK. (1998). Investigation of the Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit in experienced hearing aid users. Ear Hear 19:473–480.
  • Rose DE, Pool AF. (1994). In search of effective means to reduce hearing aid retums. Hear J 47:29–31.
  • Satherley NA. (1992). A Survey of Hearing Aid Users and the Establishment and Evaluation of a Hearing Aid Rehabilitation Program in the Christchurch Region. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.
  • Schum DJ. ( 1992). Responses of elderly hearing aid users on the Hearing Aid Performance Inventory. J Am Acad Audiol 3:308–314.
  • Schum DJ. (1999). Perceived hearing aid benefit in relation to perceived needs. J Am Acad Audiol 10:40–45.
  • Scott B, Lindberg P, Melin L, Lyttkens L. (1994). Control and dispositional style among the hearing-impaired in communication situations. Audiology 33:177–184.
  • Seyfried DA. ( 1990). Use of a Communication Self-Report Inventory to Measure Hearing Aid Counselling Effects. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA.
  • Souza PE, Turner CW. (1999). Quantifying the contribution of audibility to recognition of compression-amplified speech. Ear Hear 20:12–20.
  • Stach BA, Loiselle LH, Jerger JF. (1991). Special hearing aid considerations in elderly patients with auditory processing disorders. Ear Hear 12(Suppl):131S-138S.
  • Stephens D. (1996). Hearing rehabilitation in a psychosocial framework. Scand Audiol 43(Suppl):57–66.
  • Stephens SD, Meredith R. (1991). Quantitative reports of hearing benefit. Clin Rehabil 5:225–229.
  • Taubman LB, Palmer CV, Durrant JD, PrattS. (1999). Accuracy of hearing aid use time as reported by experienced hearing aid users. Ear Hear 20:299–305.
  • Upfold LJ, May AE. (1990). Hearing aid manipulation skills in an elderly population: a comparison of ITE, BTE and ITC aids. Br J Audiol 24:311–318.
  • Valente M. (1999). Use of microphone technology to improve user performance in noise. Trends Amplif 4:112–135.
  • Valente M, Fabry DA, Potts LG. (1995). Recognition of speech in noise with hearing aids using dual microphones. J Am Acad Audio! 6:440–449.
  • Valente M, Fabry DA, Potts LG, Sandlin RE. (1998). Comparing the performance of the Widex SENSO digital hearing aid with analog hearing aids. J Am Acad Audiol 9:342–360.
  • Ventry I, Weinstein B. (1982). The Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly: a new tool. Ear Hear 3:128–134.
  • Verschuure MA, Stikyvoort E, de Jong RM, Goedegebure A, Dreschler WA. (1996). Compression and its effect on the speech signal. Ear Hear 17:162–175.
  • Walden BE, Demorest M, Hepler E. (1984). Self-report approach to assessing benefit derived from amplification. J Speech Hear Res 27:49–56.
  • Walden BE, Surr RK, Cord MT. (1999). A clinical trial of the ReSound IC4 hearing device. J Am Acad Audio 8:65–78.
  • Weinstein BE. (1990). The quantification of hearing aid benefit in the elderly: the role of self-assessment mea­ sures. Acta Otolaryngol Suppl (Stockh) 476:257–261.
  • Welzl-Miiller K, Stephan K. (1986). The benefit of hearing aids: influence of hearing loss and age. Scand Audio! 15:115–119.
  • Wetzell C, Harford ER. (1983). Predictability of real ear hearing aid performance from coupler measurements. Ear Hear 4:237–242.