PDF icon Download PDF
J Am Acad Audiol 2021; 32(07): 405-419
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1728771
Research Article

Investigating the Role of Auditory Processing Abilities in Long-Term Self-Reported Hearing Aid Outcomes among Adults Age 60+ Years

Alyssa Davidson 
1   Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois
2   Department of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences, The University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona
,
Frank Musiek
2   Department of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences, The University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona
,
Julia M. Fisher
3   Statistics Consulting Laboratory, BIO5 Institute, The University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona
,
Nicole Marrone
2   Department of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences, The University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona
› Author Affiliations
Funding Partial funding support came from the Graduate and Professional Student Council Research and Project Grant R0219-9 (A.D.) and the Royal Arch Research Assistance (F.M.).
› Further Information
Also available atMedOne
  Permissions and Reprints
Preview

Abstract

Background Self-reported hearing aid outcomes among older adults are variable and important to improve. The extent of the role of auditory processing in long-term hearing aid outcomes is not well understood.

Purpose To determine how auditory processing abilities are related to self-reported hearing aid satisfaction and benefit along with either aided audibility alone or exploratory factors suggested by previous literature.

Research Design Descriptive analyses and multiple regression analyses of cross-sectional self-reported outcomes.

Study Sample Adult participants, >60 years (n = 78), fitted with bilateral hearing aids to treat symmetric, mild to moderate sensorineural hearing loss.

Data Collection and Analysis Participants were recruited from a single audiology clinic to complete a series of questionnaires, behavioral assessments, and obtain data from their hearing aids, including real ear measures and data logging of hearing aid use. Multiple linear regressions were used to determine the amount of variance explained by predictive factors in self-reported hearing aid satisfaction and benefit. The primary predictive factors included gap detection threshold, spatial advantage score, dichotic difference score, and aided audibility. Exploratory factors included personality, self-efficacy, self-report of disability, and hearing aid use. All interpretations of statistical significance used p < 0.05. Effect sizes were determined using Cohen's f 2 with a medium effect suggesting clinical relevance.

Results Gap detection threshold was a statistically significant predictor in both primary regression models with a medium effect size for satisfaction and a small effect size for benefit. When additional exploratory factors were included in the regression models with auditory processing abilities, gap detection and self-efficacy were both significant predictors of hearing aid satisfaction with medium effect sizes, explaining 10 and 17% of the variance, respectively. There were no medium effect sizes found for other predictor variables in either the primary or exploratory hearing aid benefit models. Additional factors were statistically significant in the models, explaining a small amount of variance, but did not meet the medium effect size criterion.

Conclusion This study provides initial evidence supporting the incorporation of measures of gap detection ability and hearing aid self-efficacy into clinical practice for the interpretation of postfitting long-term hearing aid satisfaction.

Keywords

hearing aids - auditory processing - satisfaction - benefit - self-efficacy - self-reported outcome measures

Note

The results from this paper were presented in a dissertation colloquium to the department of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences at the University of Arizona with a version of the text in the University of Arizona dissertation repository (Davidson).


Ethical Considerations

This study was approved by the University of Arizona's Institutional Review Board prior to any human recruitment or data collection. Informed consent was discussed in an oral and written format and signed prior to any testing. In addition to informed consent, participants also provided permission for retrospective review of their audiology clinical records and data collection including private health information.


Disclaimer

Any mention of a product, service, or procedure in the Journal of the American Academy of Audiology does not constitute an endorsement of the product, service, or procedure by the American Academy of Audiology.


Supplementary Material



Publication History

Received: 07 May 2020

Accepted: 05 March 2021

Article published online:
30 November 2021

© 2021. American Academy of Audiology. This article is published by Thieme.

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