R Thümmler1, T Liebscher1, U Hoppe2. 1. Audiologische Abteilung, Kopf- und Halschirurgie, Hals-Nasen-Ohrenklinik, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Waldstr. 1, 91054, Erlangen, Deutschland. 2. Audiologische Abteilung, Kopf- und Halschirurgie, Hals-Nasen-Ohrenklinik, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Waldstr. 1, 91054, Erlangen, Deutschland. ulrich.hoppe@uk-erlangen.de.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pure tone and speech audiometry are essential methods for examining the indication for hearing aids, as well as for hearing aid evaluation. Additionally, the subjective benefit of hearing aids has to be evaluated with appropriate questionnaires. The aim of the present study was to investigate the correlation between speech audiometry data and the results of a simple and user-friendly questionnaire, as well as to provide normative data for subjective benefit. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from 136 hearing aid users with bilateral sensorineural hearing loss were analyzed retrospectively. Pure tone thresholds and Freiburg monosyllabic speech perception in the binaural situation were measured at 65 dB in quiet and in noise (signal-to-noise ratio, SNR = +5 dB), with and without hearing aids. Additionally, subjective hearing in everyday life was recorded using the 12-item Oldenburg Inventory. RESULTS: Improvement of speech perception with hearing aids for the Freiburg monosyllabic test in quiet was 32.0 percentage points on average; in noise, there was an average improvement of 16.4 percentage points. There was a strong correlation between the results of pure tone and speech audiometry. With hearing aids, patients scored their everyday hearing using the Oldenburg Inventory on average 1.4 scale points better than without hearing aids. Results of the Oldenburg Inventory correlate with both pure tone and speech audiometry. CONCLUSION: Hearing aid evaluation should include both speech audiometry and systematic measurement of the subjective benefit using a suitable questionnaire. In combination, the Freiburg monosyllabic test and the Oldenburg Inventory allow for quick and comprehensive evaluation.
BACKGROUND: Pure tone and speech audiometry are essential methods for examining the indication for hearing aids, as well as for hearing aid evaluation. Additionally, the subjective benefit of hearing aids has to be evaluated with appropriate questionnaires. The aim of the present study was to investigate the correlation between speech audiometry data and the results of a simple and user-friendly questionnaire, as well as to provide normative data for subjective benefit. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data from 136 hearing aid users with bilateral sensorineural hearing loss were analyzed retrospectively. Pure tone thresholds and Freiburg monosyllabic speech perception in the binaural situation were measured at 65 dB in quiet and in noise (signal-to-noise ratio, SNR = +5 dB), with and without hearing aids. Additionally, subjective hearing in everyday life was recorded using the 12-item Oldenburg Inventory. RESULTS: Improvement of speech perception with hearing aids for the Freiburg monosyllabic test in quiet was 32.0 percentage points on average; in noise, there was an average improvement of 16.4 percentage points. There was a strong correlation between the results of pure tone and speech audiometry. With hearing aids, patients scored their everyday hearing using the Oldenburg Inventory on average 1.4 scale points better than without hearing aids. Results of the Oldenburg Inventory correlate with both pure tone and speech audiometry. CONCLUSION: Hearing aid evaluation should include both speech audiometry and systematic measurement of the subjective benefit using a suitable questionnaire. In combination, the Freiburg monosyllabic test and the Oldenburg Inventory allow for quick and comprehensive evaluation.
Entities:
Keywords:
Audiometry, pure tone; Audiometry, speech; Hearing tests; Questionnaires; Sensorineural hearing loss
Authors: B Kollmeier; T Lenarz; J Kießling; J Müller-Deile; T Steffens; H v Wedel; W H Döring; M Buschermöhle; K Wagener; T Brand Journal: HNO Date: 2014-01 Impact factor: 1.284
Authors: J Löhler; B Akcicek; M Pilnik; K Saager-Post; S Dazert; S Biedron; J Oeken; D Mürbe; J Löbert; R Laszig; T Wesarg; C Langer; S Plontke; T Rahne; U Machate; R Noppeney; K Schultz; P Plinkert; S Hoth; M Praetorius; P Schlattmann; E F Meister; H W Pau; K Ehrt; R Hagen; W Shehata-Dieler; M Cebulla; L E Walther; A Ernst Journal: HNO Date: 2013-07 Impact factor: 1.284
Authors: J Löhler; B Akcicek; B Wollenberg; R Schönweiler; L Verges; Ch Langer; U Machate; R Noppeney; K Schultz; J Kleeberg; B Junge-Hülsing; L E Walther; P Schlattmann; A Ernst Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2014-04-17 Impact factor: 2.503