PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to develop and validate an interview instrument for assessing outcome following hearing aid fitting based on clinical global impressions. METHOD: The Audiological Rehabilitation Clinical Global Impression (AR-CGI) was developed and used in a telephone interview in two separate samples. The first sample (N=69) consisted of hearing aid owners who had participated in two intervention studies, and the second sample consisted of hearing aid owners receiving regular services from a hearing clinic (N=21). Following the semi-structured telephone interview, participants were categorised into three categories: successful, successful with some limitations or unsuccessful. RESULTS: A vast majority were categorised as successful (80% of the intervention sample and 71% of the clinical sample). Those categorised as successful were found to differ from those categorised as less successful in terms of age and self-reported hearing aid use, depressed mood and residual participation restriction, but they did not differ in terms of degree of hearing loss. CONCLUSIONS: It is suggested that the brevity and usefulness of the AR-CGI makes it a potential tool for further use in audiological settings.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to develop and validate an interview instrument for assessing outcome following hearing aid fitting based on clinical global impressions. METHOD: The Audiological Rehabilitation Clinical Global Impression (AR-CGI) was developed and used in a telephone interview in two separate samples. The first sample (N=69) consisted of hearing aid owners who had participated in two intervention studies, and the second sample consisted of hearing aid owners receiving regular services from a hearing clinic (N=21). Following the semi-structured telephone interview, participants were categorised into three categories: successful, successful with some limitations or unsuccessful. RESULTS: A vast majority were categorised as successful (80% of the intervention sample and 71% of the clinical sample). Those categorised as successful were found to differ from those categorised as less successful in terms of age and self-reported hearing aid use, depressed mood and residual participation restriction, but they did not differ in terms of degree of hearing loss. CONCLUSIONS: It is suggested that the brevity and usefulness of the AR-CGI makes it a potential tool for further use in audiological settings.