J Am Acad Audiol 2001; 12(08): 383-389
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1745624
Original Article

Measuring Hearing Aid Benefit Using a Willingness-To-Pay Approach

Theresa Hnath Chisolm
Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida
Harvey B. Abrams
Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida; Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Bay Pines, Florida
› Author Affiliations


The value associated with self-perceived hearing aid benefit was assessed using a “willingness-to-pay” (WTP) approach. Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) data were obtained from 79 veterans who also indicated how much they were willing to pay for each hearing aid. The results of a multiple regression analysis revealed that veterans were willing to pay $22.06 more for a hearing aid for each 1 -point increase in APHAB global benefit. A second multiple regression analysis revealed that the APHAB subscale scores for Ease of Communication (EC) benefit and understanding speech in Background Noise (BN) benefit, as well as income level, were all significant predictors of WTP. In addition, each 1-point increase in EC, BN, and Reverberation benefit increased the value associated with amplification by $16.32, $16.88, and $13.78, respectively. Each 1 -point increase in the Aversiveness of Sounds subscale decreased the value associated with amplification by $7.63.The mean WTP across all income groups was $981.71 per hearing aid. These data are interpreted to support the use of WTP as a valid measure of hearing aid benefit.

Abbreviations: APHAB = Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit, AV = Aversiveness of Sounds, BN = Background Noise, COSI = Client Oriented Scale of Improvement, EC = Ease of Communication, RV = Reverberant Environments, VA = Department of Veterans Affairs, WTP = willingness to pay

Publication History

Article published online:
04 March 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


  • Abrams H, Hnath-Chisolm T. (2000). Outcome measures: the audiologic difference. In: Valente M, Hosford-Dunn H, Roesser R, eds. Audiology: Diagnosis, Treatment Strategies, and Practice Management. New York: Thieme. 69-95.
  • Cohen J, Cohen P. (1983). Applied Multiple Regression / Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd Ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Cox R. (1997a). Administration and application of the APHAB. Hear J 50:32-48.
  • Cox R, Alexander G. (1995). The Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit. Ear Hear 16:176-186.
  • Dillon H, James A, Ginis J. (1997). Client Oriented Scale of Improvement (COSI) and its relationship to several other measures of benefit and satisfaction provided by hearing aids. J Am Acad Audiol 8:27-43.
  • Drummond M, O’Brien B, Stoddart G, Torrance G. (1997). Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. 2nd Ed. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Gatehouse S. (1999). Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit Profile: derivation and validation of a client-centered outcome measure for hearing aid services. J Am Acad Audiol 10:80-103.
  • Newman C, Sandridge S. (1998). Benefit from, satisfaction with, and cost-effectiveness of three different hearing aid technologies. Am J Audiol 7:115-128.
  • Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH. (1994). Psychometric Theory. 3rd Ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  • Palmer CV, Killion MC, Wilber LA, Ballard WJ. (1995). Comparison of two hearing aid receivers-amplifier combinations using sound quality judgments. Ear Hear 16:587-598.
  • Ventry I, Weinstein B. (1982). The Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly: a new tool. Ear Hear 3:128-134.
  • World Health Organization. (2000). International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICIDH-2), Pre Final Draft. Geneva: World Health Organization.