Download PDF
Semin Hear 2022; 43(02): 066-078
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1748874
Review Article

Applying the Hearing Aid Fitting Standard to Selection for Adults

Erin M. Picou
1   Department of Hearing and Speech Sciences, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee
,
Richard A. Roberts
1   Department of Hearing and Speech Sciences, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee
,
Gina Angley
1   Department of Hearing and Speech Sciences, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee
,
Todd A. Ricketts
1   Department of Hearing and Speech Sciences, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

The recent hearing aid fitting standard for adults outlines the minimum practice for audiologists fitting adult patients with hearing loss. This article focuses on three items of the standard (5, 6, and 7), which focus on the selection of unilateral/bilateral hearing aids, hearing aid style, and coupling, in addition to feature selection. The standard emphasizes that decisions around these three aspects should be recommended for a patient in an individualized manner, based on their needs assessment. For these decisions, the needs assessment might include measures of speech-in-noise ability, social network size, patient preference, and a trial period. Additional elements could include assessments of manual dexterity, binaural interference, and attitude toward hearing aids. However, there are a multitude of ways to practice clinically and still meet the items outlined in the standard. As long as the selection decisions consider individualized patient factors and are capable of meeting validated prescriptive targets, a clinician would be meeting the adult hearing aid fitting minimum standard guidance. In addition, despite the large number of past studies supporting these standards, additional, high-quality research including randomized, controlled, clinical trials are still needed to further support appropriate minimum standard recommendations.

Keywords

hearing aid fitting - adults - hearing loss - standard


Publication History

Article published online:
26 July 2022

© 2022. Thieme. All rights reserved.

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

 

  • References

  • 1 Ricketts TA, Bentler R, Mueller GH. Essentials of Modern Hearing Aids: Selection, Fitting, and Verification. San Diego: Plural;. 2017
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Dillon H. Hearing Aids. 2nd ed. New York:: Thieme;; 2012
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Boymans M, Goverts ST, Kramer SE, Festen JM, Dreschler WA. A prospective multi-centre study of the benefits of bilateral hearing aids. Ear Hear 2008; 29 (06) 930-941
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Freyaldenhoven MC, Plyler PN, Thelin JW, Burchfield SB. Acceptance of noise with monaural and binaural amplification. J Am Acad Audiol 2006; 17 (09) 659-666
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Hawkins DB, Yacullo WS. Signal-to-noise ratio advantage of binaural hearing aids and directional microphones under different levels of reverberation. J Speech Hear Disord 1984; 49 (03) 278-286
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Köjbler S, Rosenhall U, Hansson H. Bilateral hearing aids–effects and consequences from a user perspective. Scand Audiol 2001; 30 (04) 223-235
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Ricketts TA, Picou EM, Shehorn J, Dittberner AB. Degree of hearing loss affects bilateral hearing aid benefits in ecologically relevant laboratory conditions. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2019; 62 (10) 3834-3850
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Schilder AG, Chong LY, Ftouh S, Burton MJ. Bilateral versus unilateral hearing aids for bilateral hearing impairment in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017; 12: CD012665
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Erdman SA, Sedge RK. Subjective comparisons of binaural versus monaural amplification. Ear Hear 1981; 2 (05) 225-229
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Cox RM, Schwartz KS, Noe CM, Alexander GC. Preference for one or two hearing AIDS among adult patients. Ear Hear 2011; 32 (02) 181-197
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Glyde H, Dillon H, Young T, Seeto M, Roup C. Determining unilateral or bilateral hearing aid preference in adults: a prospective study. Int J Audiol 2021; 60 (05) 341-349
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Schreurs KK, Olsen WO. Comparison of monaural and binaural hearing aid use on a trial period basis. Ear Hear 1985; 6 (04) 198-202
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Vaughan-Jones RH, Padgham ND, Christmas HE, Irwin J, Doig MA. One aid or two?–more visits please!. J Laryngol Otol 1993; 107 (04) 329-332
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Hickson L. Rehabilitation approaches to promote successful unilateral and bilateral fittings and avoid inappropriate prescription. Int J Audiol 2006; 45 (Suppl. 01) S72-S77
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Stephens SD, Callaghan DE, Hogan S, Meredith R, Rayment A, Davis A. Acceptability of binaural hearing aids: a cross-over study. J R Soc Med 1991; 84 (05) 267-269
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Munro KJ. Reorganization of the adult auditory system: perceptual and physiological evidence from monaural fitting of hearing aids. Trends Amplif 2008; 12 (03) 254-271
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Boymans M, Goverts ST, Kramer SE, Festen JM, Dreschler WA. Candidacy for bilateral hearing aids: a retrospective multicenter study. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2009; 52 (01) 130-140
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Köbler S, Lindblad A-C, Olofsson A, Hagerman B. Successful and unsuccessful users of bilateral amplification: differences and similarities in binaural performance. Int J Audiol 2010; 49 (09) 613-627
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 van Schoonhoven J, Schulte M, Boymans M, Wagener KC, Dreschler WA, Kollmeier B. Selecting appropriate tests to assess the benefits of bilateral amplification with hearing aids. Trends Hear 2016; 20: 1-16
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Jerger J, Silman S, Lew HL, Chmiel R. Case studies in binaural interference: converging evidence from behavioral and electrophysiologic measures. J Am Acad Audiol 1993; 4 (02) 122-131
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Carter AS, Noe CM, Wilson RH. Listeners who prefer monaural to binaural hearing aids. J Am Acad Audiol 2001; 12 (05) 261-272
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Chmiel R, Jerger J, Murphy E, Pirozzolo F, Tooley-Young C. Unsuccessful use of binaural amplification by an elderly person. J Am Acad Audiol 1997; 8 (01) 1-10
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Lavie L, Banai K, Attias J, Karni A. Better together: reduced compliance after sequential versus simultaneous bilateral hearing aids fitting. Am J Audiol 2014; 23 (01) 93-98
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Dillon H. Hearing Aids. New York:: Thieme Medical Pub;; 2001
    Google Scholar
  • 25 Picou EM. MarkeTrak 10 (MT10) survey results demonstrate high satisfaction with and benefits from hearing aids. Semin Hear 2020; 41 (01) 21-36
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Mueller HG. Open is in. Hear J 2006; 59 (11) 11-12
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Sullivan R. A simple and expedient method to facilitate receiver-in-canal (RIC) non-custom tip insertion. Hearing Review 2018; 25 (03) 12-13
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Kiessling J, Brenner B, Jespersen CT, Groth J, Jensen OD. Occlusion effect of earmolds with different venting systems. J Am Acad Audiol 2005; 16 (04) 237-249
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Winkler A, Latzel M, Holube I. Open versus closed hearing-aid fittings: a literature review of both fitting approaches. Trends Hear 2016; 20: 23 31216516631741
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Smith P, Mack A, Davis A. A multicenter trial of an assess-and-fit hearing aid service using open canal fittings and comply ear tips. Trends Amplif 2008; 12 (02) 121-136
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Taylor B. Real-world satisfaction and benefit with open-canal fittings. Hear J 2006; 59 (11) 74-76
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Laugesen S, Jensen NS, Maas P, Nielsen C. Own voice qualities (OVQ) in hearing-aid users: there is more than just occlusion. Int J Audiol 2011; 50 (04) 226-236
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Jespersen CT, Groth J, Kiessling J, Brenner B, Jensen OD. The occlusion effect in unilateral versus bilateral hearing aids. J Am Acad Audiol 2006; 17 (10) 763-773
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Carle R, Laugesen S, Nielsen C. Observations on the relations among occlusion effect, compliance, and vent size. J Am Acad Audiol 2002; 13 (01) 25-37
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Balling LW, Jensen NS, Caporali S, Cubick J, Switalski W. Challenges of instant-fit ear tips: what happens at the eardrum. Hearing Review 2019; 26 (12) 12-15
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Kuk F, Keenan D. How do vents affect hearing aid performance?. Hearing Review 2006; 13 (02) 34
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Mueller HG. Fitting hearing aids to adults using prescriptive methods: an evidence-based review of effectiveness. J Am Acad Audiol 2005; 16 (07) 448-460
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Abrams HB, Chisolm TH, McManus M, McArdle R. Initial-fit approach versus verified prescription: comparing self-perceived hearing aid benefit. J Am Acad Audiol 2012; 23 (10) 768-778
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Lybarger SF. Acoustic feedback control. In: Studebaker GA, Bess FH, eds. The Vanderbilt Hearing-Aid Report. Upper Darby, PA: Monographs in Contemporary Audiology 1982: 87-90
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Kochkin S. MarkeTrak VI: On the issue of value: hearing aid benefit, price, satisfaction, and repurchase rates. Hearing Review 2003; 10 (02) 12-29
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Kochkin S. MarkeTrak VII: Obstacles to adult non-user adoption of hearing aids. Hear J 2007; 60 (04) 24-51
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 McCormack A, Fortnum H. Why do people fitted with hearing aids not wear them?. Int J Audiol 2013; 52 (05) 360-368
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Reiter RS. Romance, sexuality, and hearing loss. ASHA 1987; 29 (12) 29-30
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Johnson EE. Survey finds higher sales and prices, plus more open fittings and directional mics. Hear J 2007; 60 (04) 52-58
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Marcrum SC, Picou EM, Bohr C, Steffens T. Feedback reduction system influence on additional gain before feedback and maximum stable gain in open-fitted hearing aids. Int J Audiol 2018; 57 (10) 737-745
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Teie P. Ear-coupler acoustics in receiver-in-the-aid fittings. Hear Rev 2009; 16 (13) 10-16
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Johnson EE, Ricketts TA, Hornsby BW. The effect of digital phase cancellation feedback reduction systems on amplified sound quality. J Am Acad Audiol 2007; 18 (05) 404-416
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Ricketts T, Johnson E, Federman J. Individual differences within and across feedback suppression hearing aids. J Am Acad Audiol 2008; 19 (10) 748-757
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Kumar M, Hickey S, Shaw S. Manual dexterity and successful hearing aid use. J Laryngol Otol 2000; 114 (08) 593-597
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Darkner S, Larsen R, Paulsen RR. Analysis of deformation of the human ear and canal caused by mandibular movement. In N. Ayache, S. Ourselin, & A. Maeder (Eds.), MICCAI 2007, Part II. 2007 4792. 801-808 Heidelberg, Germany: Springer-Verlag
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Campos PD, Bozza A, Ferrari DV. Hearing aid handling skills: relationship with satisfaction and benefit. CoDAS 2014; 26 (01) 10-16
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Saunders GH, Morse-Fortier C, McDermott DJ. et al. Description, normative data, and utility of the hearing aid skills and knowledge test. J Am Acad Audiol 2018; 29 (03) 233-242
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Solheim J, Gay C, Hickson L. Older adults' experiences and issues with hearing aids in the first six months after hearing aid fitting. Int J Audiol 2018; 57 (01) 31-39
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Jacobson GP, Newman CW, Fabry DA, Sandridge SA. Development of the three-clinic hearing aid selection profile (HASP). J Am Acad Audiol 2001; 12 (03) 128-141 , quiz 165–166
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Wilson C, Stephens D. Reasons for referral and attitudes toward hearing aids: do they affect outcome?. Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 2003; 28 (02) 81-84
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 56 Hickson L, Meyer C, Lovelock K, Lampert M, Khan A. Factors associated with success with hearing aids in older adults. Int J Audiol 2014; 53 (Suppl. 01) S18-S27
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 57 Jacobson GP, Newman CW, Sandridge SA, McCaslin DL. Using the Hearing Aid Selection Profile to identify factors in hearing aid returns. Hear J 2002; 55 (02) 30-33
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 58 Sandridge SA, Newman CW. Improving the efficiency and accountability of the hearing aid selection process: use of the COAT. Audiology Online 2006; 1541
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 59 Desrosiers J, Hébert R, Bravo G, Dutil E. The Purdue Pegboard Test: normative data for people aged 60 and over. Disabil Rehabil 1995; 17 (05) 217-224
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 60 Cox RM, Alexander GC. Expectations about hearing aids and their relationship to fitting outcome. J Am Acad Audiol 2000; 11 (07) 368-382 , quiz 407
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 61 Hallam RS, Brooks DN. Development of the hearing attitudes in rehabilitation questionnaire (HARQ). Br J Audiol 1996; 30 (03) 199-213
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 62 Cox RM, Alexander GC. Measuring satisfaction with amplification in daily life: The SADL scale. Ear Hear 1999; 20 (04) 306-320
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 63 Bennett RJ, Taljaard DS, Brennan-Jones CG, Tegg-Quinn S, Eikelboom RH. Evaluating hearing aid handling skills: a systematic and descriptive review. Int J Audiol 2015; 54 (11) 765-776
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 64 Desjardins JL, Doherty KA. Do experienced hearing aid users know how to use their hearing aids correctly?. Am J Audiol 2009; 18 (01) 69-76
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 65 Pothier DD, Bredenkamp C. Hearing aid insertion: correlation between patients' confidence and ability. J Laryngol Otol 2006; 120 (05) 378-380
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 66 Almufarrij I, Dillon H, Munro KJ. Does probe-tube verification of real-ear hearing aid amplification characteristics improve outcomes in adults? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Trends Hear 2021; 25: 23 31216521999563
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 67 Valente M, Oeding K, Brockmeyer A, Smith S, Kallogjeri D. Differences in word and phoneme recognition in quiet, sentence recognition in noise, and subjective outcomes between manufacturer first-fit and hearing aids programmed to NAL-NL2 using real-ear measures. J Am Acad Audiol 2018; 29 (08) 706-721
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 68 Keidser G, Dillon H, Carter L, O'Brien A. NAL-NL2 empirical adjustments. Trends Amplif 2012; 16 (04) 211-223
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 69 Polonenko MJ, Scollie SD, Moodie S. et al. Fit to targets, preferred listening levels, and self-reported outcomes for the DSL v5.0 a hearing aid prescription for adults. Int J Audiol 2010; 49 (08) 550-560
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 70 Ricketts TA, Hornsby BW. Sound quality measures for speech in noise through a commercial hearing aid implementing digital noise reduction. J Am Acad Audiol 2005; 16 (05) 270-277
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 71 Bentler R, Wu Y-H, Kettel J, Hurtig R. Digital noise reduction: outcomes from laboratory and field studies. Int J Audiol 2008; 47 (08) 447-460
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 72 Mueller HG, Weber J, Hornsby BW. The effects of digital noise reduction on the acceptance of background noise. Trends Amplif 2006; 10 (02) 83-93
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 73 Lakshmi MSK, Rout A, O'Donoghue CR. A systematic review and meta-analysis of digital noise reduction hearing aids in adults. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 2021; 16 (02) 120-129
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 74 Ricketts T, Henry P. Evaluation of an adaptive, directional-microphone hearing aid. Int J Audiol 2002; 41 (02) 100-112
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 75 Wu Y-H, 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
  • 76 Picou EM, Aspell E, Ricketts TA. Potential benefits and limitations of three types of directional processing in hearing aids. Ear Hear 2014; 35 (03) 339-352
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 77 Picou EM, Ricketts TA. An evaluation of hearing aid beamforming microphone arrays in a noisy laboratory setting. J Am Acad Audiol 2019; 30 (02) 131-144
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 78 Best V, Mejia J, Freeston K, van Hoesel RJ, Dillon H. An evaluation of the performance of two binaural beamformers in complex and dynamic multitalker environments. Int J Audiol 2015; 54 (10) 727-735
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 79 Simpson A, Bond A, Loeliger M, Clarke S. Speech intelligibility benefits of frequency-lowering algorithms in adult hearing aid users: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Audiol 2018; 57 (04) 249-261
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 80 Mao Y, Yang J, Hahn E, Xu L. Auditory perceptual efficacy of nonlinear frequency compression used in hearing aids: a review. J Otol 2017; 12 (03) 97-111
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 81 Picou EM, Rakita L, Buono GH, Moore TM. Effects of increasing the overall level or fitting hearing aids on emotional responses to sounds. Trends Hear 2021; 25: 23 312165211049938
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 82 Souza PE, Arehart KH, Kates JM, Croghan NB, Gehani N. Exploring the limits of frequency lowering. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2013; 56 (05) 1349-1363
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 83 Keidser G, Carter L, Chalupper J, Dillon H. Effect of low-frequency gain and venting effects on the benefit derived from directionality and noise reduction in hearing aids. Int J Audiol 2007; 46 (10) 554-568
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 84 Ricketts T. Directivity quantification in hearing aids: fitting and measurement effects. Ear Hear 2000; 21 (01) 45-58
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 85 Picou EM, Ricketts TA. Comparison of wireless and acoustic hearing aid-based telephone listening strategies. Ear Hear 2011; 32 (02) 209-220
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 86 Durin V, Carlile S, Guillon P, Best V, Kalluri S. Acoustic analysis of the directional information captured by five different hearing aid styles. J Acoust Soc Am 2014; 136 (02) 818-828
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 87 Taylor B. Speech-in-noise tests: How and why to include them in your basic test battery. Hear J 2003; 56 (01) 40-42
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 88 Etymotic Research. QuickSIN Speech-in-Noise Test. Version 1.3. Elk Grove Village, IL:: Etymotic Research, Inc;; 2006
    Google Scholar
  • 89 Wu YH, Stangl E, Chipara O, Hasan SS, Welhaven A, Oleson J. Characteristics of real-world signal to noise ratios and speech listening situations of older adults with mild to moderate hearing loss. Ear Hear 2018; 39 (02) 293-304
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 90 Cohen S, Doyle WJ, Skoner DP, Rabin BS, Gwaltney Jr JM. Social ties and susceptibility to the common cold. JAMA 1997; 277 (24) 1940-1944
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 91 Wu Y-H, Bentler RA. Do older adults have social lifestyles that place fewer demands on hearing?. J Am Acad Audiol 2012; 23 (09) 697-711
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 92 Ricketts T. The impact of head angle on monaural and binaural performance with directional and omnidirectional hearing aids. Ear Hear 2000; 21 (04) 318-328
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar