Literature DB >> 2192930

Discriminating and responsiveness abilities of two hearing handicap scales.

C D Mulrow1, M R Tuley, C Aguilar.   

Abstract

Several scales exist for screening handicap and assessing rehabilitation in elderly individuals with hearing loss. There are few comparative studies, however, to suggest which scales perform best. Using receiver-operating curves and responsiveness indices, we examined the relative discriminating ability and sensitivity to detect change of four scales: a long and short version of the Hearing Handicap Inventory in the Elderly (HHIE-L, HHIE-S), and a long and short version of the Revised Quantified Denver Scale of Communication Function (RQDS-L, RQDS-S). All scales were administered to 137 elderly veterans with hearing loss and 101 elderly veterans without hearing loss. Follow-up testing to determine relative ability to detect change was assessed in hearing impaired individuals only after they had used a hearing aid for 4 months. Discriminative accuracy for correctly identifying individuals with hearing loss were: HHIE-L 78%, HHIE-S 79%, RQDS-L 73%, and RQDS-S 74%. Overall differences between the HHIE-S and the RQDS-S were not statistically significant (p = 0.06). True positive results were greater with the HHIE-S compared to the RQDS-S (p = 0.03). Responsiveness indices were: HHIE-L 1.78, HHIE-S 1.86, RQDS-L 1.04, and RQDS-S 1.07. Differences between the HHIE-S and the RQDS-S were statistically significant (p less than 0.05). We conclude short versions of the HHIE and RQDS are as accurate and sensitive for detecting change as long versions, and the HHIE-S is a superior versatile instrument for screening and assessing rehabilitation in elderly individuals with hearing impairment.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1990        PMID: 2192930     DOI: 10.1097/00003446-199006000-00002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ear Hear        ISSN: 0196-0202            Impact factor:   3.570


  5 in total

Review 1.  Screening for hearing impairment in the elderly: rationale and strategy.

Authors:  C D Mulrow; M J Lichtenstein
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  1991 May-Jun       Impact factor: 5.128

2.  Impact of Aging and Cognition on Hearing Assistive Technology Use.

Authors:  Lindsey E Jorgensen; Jessica J Messersmith
Journal:  Semin Hear       Date:  2015-08

3.  Hearing disability in patients with Fuchs' endothelial corneal dystrophy: unrecognized co-pathology?

Authors:  Marilette Stehouwer; Ward R Bijlsma; Allegonda Van der Lelij
Journal:  Clin Ophthalmol       Date:  2011-09-09

4.  Hearing Health Care Utilization Following Automated Hearing Screening.

Authors:  Robert L Folmer; Gabrielle H Saunders; Jay J Vachhani; Robert H Margolis; George Saly; Bevan Yueh; Rachel A McArdle; Lawrence L Feth; Christina M Roup; M Patrick Feeney
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2021-06-01       Impact factor: 1.245

5.  Validation of the Swedish Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly (Screening Version) and Evaluation of Its Effect in Hearing Aid Rehabilitation.

Authors:  Maria Öberg
Journal:  Trends Hear       Date:  2016-03-23       Impact factor: 3.293

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.