Gurjit Singh1, Sin-Tung Lau, M Kathleen Pichora-Fuller. 1. 1Phonak Canada Ltd, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada; 2Department of Speech-Language Pathology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; 3Department of Research, Toronto Rehabilitation Institute, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; and 4Department of Psychology, University of Toronto Mississauga, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The goals of the current research were to determine: (1) whether there is a relationship between perceived social support and hearing aid satisfaction, and (2) how well perceived social support predicts hearing aid satisfaction relative to other correlates previously identified in the literature. DESIGN: In study 1, 173 adult ((Equation is included in full-text article.)age = 68.9 years; SD = 13.4) users of hearing aids completed a survey assessing attitudes toward health, hearing, and hearing aids, as well as a questionnaire assessing Big-Five personality factors (Openness to Experience, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism) either using paper and pencil or the Internet. In a follow-up study designed to replicate and extend the results from study 1, 161 adult ((Equation is included in full-text article.)age = 32.8 years; SD = 13.3) users of hearing aids completed a similar survey on the Internet. In study 2, participants also completed a measure of hearing aid benefit and reported the style of their hearing aid. RESULTS: In studies 1 and 2, perceived social support was significantly correlated with hearing aid satisfaction (respectively, r = 0.34, r = 0.51, ps < 0.001). The results of a regression analysis revealed that in study 1, 22% of the variance in hearing aid satisfaction scores was predicted by perceived social support, satisfaction with one's hearing health care provider, duration of daily hearing aid use, and openness. In study 2, 43% of the variance in hearing aid satisfaction was predicted by perceived social support, hearing aid benefit, neuroticism, and hearing aid style. Overall, perceived social support was the best predictor of hearing aid satisfaction in both studies. After controlling for response style (i.e., acquiescence or the tendency to respond positively), the correlation between perceived social support and hearing aid satisfaction remained the same in study 1 (r = 0.34, p < 0.001) and was lower in study 2 (r = 0.39, p < 0.001), although the change in correlation was not significant. CONCLUSIONS: The results from study 1 provide evidence to suggest that perceived social support is a significant predictor of satisfaction with hearing aids, a finding that was replicated in a different sample of participants investigated in study 2. A significant relationship between perceived social support and hearing aid satisfaction was observed in both studies, even though the composition of the two samples differed in terms of age, relationship status, income, proportion of individuals with unilateral versus bilateral hearing impairment, and lifetime experience with hearing aids. The results from both studies 1 and 2 provide no support for the claim that participant response style accounts for the relationship between hearing aid satisfaction and perceived social support.
OBJECTIVES: The goals of the current research were to determine: (1) whether there is a relationship between perceived social support and hearing aid satisfaction, and (2) how well perceived social support predicts hearing aid satisfaction relative to other correlates previously identified in the literature. DESIGN: In study 1, 173 adult ((Equation is included in full-text article.)age = 68.9 years; SD = 13.4) users of hearing aids completed a survey assessing attitudes toward health, hearing, and hearing aids, as well as a questionnaire assessing Big-Five personality factors (Openness to Experience, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism) either using paper and pencil or the Internet. In a follow-up study designed to replicate and extend the results from study 1, 161 adult ((Equation is included in full-text article.)age = 32.8 years; SD = 13.3) users of hearing aids completed a similar survey on the Internet. In study 2, participants also completed a measure of hearing aid benefit and reported the style of their hearing aid. RESULTS: In studies 1 and 2, perceived social support was significantly correlated with hearing aid satisfaction (respectively, r = 0.34, r = 0.51, ps < 0.001). The results of a regression analysis revealed that in study 1, 22% of the variance in hearing aid satisfaction scores was predicted by perceived social support, satisfaction with one's hearing health care provider, duration of daily hearing aid use, and openness. In study 2, 43% of the variance in hearing aid satisfaction was predicted by perceived social support, hearing aid benefit, neuroticism, and hearing aid style. Overall, perceived social support was the best predictor of hearing aid satisfaction in both studies. After controlling for response style (i.e., acquiescence or the tendency to respond positively), the correlation between perceived social support and hearing aid satisfaction remained the same in study 1 (r = 0.34, p < 0.001) and was lower in study 2 (r = 0.39, p < 0.001), although the change in correlation was not significant. CONCLUSIONS: The results from study 1 provide evidence to suggest that perceived social support is a significant predictor of satisfaction with hearing aids, a finding that was replicated in a different sample of participants investigated in study 2. A significant relationship between perceived social support and hearing aid satisfaction was observed in both studies, even though the composition of the two samples differed in terms of age, relationship status, income, proportion of individuals with unilateral versus bilateral hearing impairment, and lifetime experience with hearing aids. The results from both studies 1 and 2 provide no support for the claim that participant response style accounts for the relationship between hearing aid satisfaction and perceived social support.
Authors: Paul Mick; Maksim Parfyonov; Walter Wittich; Natalie Phillips; Dawn Guthrie; M Kathleen Pichora-Fuller Journal: Can Fam Physician Date: 2018-01 Impact factor: 3.275
Authors: Jacqueline M Weycker; Lauren K Dillard; Alex Pinto; Mary E Fischer; Karen J Cruickshanks; Ted S Tweed Journal: Am J Audiol Date: 2021-11-03 Impact factor: 1.636
Authors: Lauren K Dillard; Amy L Cochran; Alex Pinto; Cynthia G Fowler; Mary E Fischer; Ted S Tweed; Karen J Cruickshanks Journal: Int J Audiol Date: 2020-12-07 Impact factor: 2.437
Authors: Adrian Davis; Catherine M McMahon; Kathleen M Pichora-Fuller; Shirley Russ; Frank Lin; Bolajoko O Olusanya; Shelly Chadha; Kelly L Tremblay Journal: Gerontologist Date: 2016-04
Authors: Øyvind Nordvik; Peder O Laugen Heggdal; K Jonas Brännström; Anne Kari Aarstad; Hans Jørgen Aarstad Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2021-06-22 Impact factor: 3.186