Yu-Hsiang Wu1, Elizabeth Stangl1, Octav Chipara2, Anna Gudjonsdottir3, Jacob Oleson3, Ruth Bentler1. 1. Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa. 2. Department of Computer Science, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa. 3. Department of Biostatistics, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) is a methodology involving repeated surveys to collect in-situ self-reports that describe respondents' current or recent experiences. Audiology literature comparing in-situ and retrospective self-reports is scarce. PURPOSE: To compare the sensitivity of in-situ and retrospective self-reports in detecting the outcome difference between hearing aid technologies, and to determine the association between in-situ and retrospective self-reports. RESEARCH DESIGN: An observational study. STUDY SAMPLE: Thirty-nine older adults with hearing loss. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The study was part of a larger clinical trial that compared the outcomes of a prototype hearing aid (denoted as HA1) and a commercially available device (HA2). In each trial condition, participants wore hearing aids for 4 weeks. Outcomes were measured using EMA and retrospective questionnaires. To ensure that the outcome data could be directly compared, the Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit Profile was administered as an in-situ self-report (denoted as EMA-GHABP) and as a retrospective questionnaire (retro-GHABP). Linear mixed models were used to determine if the EMA- and retro-GHABP could detect the outcome difference between HA1 and HA2. Correlation analyses were used to examine the association between EMA- and retro-GHABP. RESULTS: For the EMA-GHABP, HA2 had significantly higher (better) scores than HA1 in the GHABP subscales of benefit, residual disability, and satisfaction (p = 0.029-0.0015). In contrast, the difference in the retro-GHABP score between HA1 and HA2 was significant only in the satisfaction subscale (p = 0.0004). The correlations between the EMA- and retro-GHABP were significant in all subscales (p = 0.0004 to <0.0001). The strength of the association ranged from weak to moderate (r = 0.28-0.58). Finally, the exit interview indicated that 29 participants (74.4%) preferred HA2 over HA1. CONCLUSION: The study suggests that in-situ self-reports collected using EMA could have a higher sensitivity than retrospective questionnaires. Therefore, EMA is worth considering in clinical trials that aim to compare the outcomes of different hearing aid technologies. The weak to moderate association between in-situ and retrospective self-reports suggests that these two types of measures assess different aspects of hearing aid outcomes. American Academy of Audiology. This article is published by Thieme.
BACKGROUND: Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) is a methodology involving repeated surveys to collect in-situ self-reports that describe respondents' current or recent experiences. Audiology literature comparing in-situ and retrospective self-reports is scarce. PURPOSE: To compare the sensitivity of in-situ and retrospective self-reports in detecting the outcome difference between hearing aid technologies, and to determine the association between in-situ and retrospective self-reports. RESEARCH DESIGN: An observational study. STUDY SAMPLE: Thirty-nine older adults with hearing loss. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The study was part of a larger clinical trial that compared the outcomes of a prototype hearing aid (denoted as HA1) and a commercially available device (HA2). In each trial condition, participants wore hearing aids for 4 weeks. Outcomes were measured using EMA and retrospective questionnaires. To ensure that the outcome data could be directly compared, the Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit Profile was administered as an in-situ self-report (denoted as EMA-GHABP) and as a retrospective questionnaire (retro-GHABP). Linear mixed models were used to determine if the EMA- and retro-GHABP could detect the outcome difference between HA1 and HA2. Correlation analyses were used to examine the association between EMA- and retro-GHABP. RESULTS: For the EMA-GHABP, HA2 had significantly higher (better) scores than HA1 in the GHABP subscales of benefit, residual disability, and satisfaction (p = 0.029-0.0015). In contrast, the difference in the retro-GHABP score between HA1 and HA2 was significant only in the satisfaction subscale (p = 0.0004). The correlations between the EMA- and retro-GHABP were significant in all subscales (p = 0.0004 to <0.0001). The strength of the association ranged from weak to moderate (r = 0.28-0.58). Finally, the exit interview indicated that 29 participants (74.4%) preferred HA2 over HA1. CONCLUSION: The study suggests that in-situ self-reports collected using EMA could have a higher sensitivity than retrospective questionnaires. Therefore, EMA is worth considering in clinical trials that aim to compare the outcomes of different hearing aid technologies. The weak to moderate association between in-situ and retrospective self-reports suggests that these two types of measures assess different aspects of hearing aid outcomes. American Academy of Audiology. This article is published by Thieme.
Authors: Gino Galvez; Mitchel B Turbin; Emily J Thielman; Joseph A Istvan; Judy A Andrews; James A Henry Journal: Ear Hear Date: 2012 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 3.570