Literature DB >> 8377494

Longitudinal study of hearing aid effectiveness. II: Subjective measures.

R A Bentler1, D P Niebuhr, J P Getta, C V Anderson.   

Abstract

This report is the second of two detailing a longitudinal follow-up of hearing aid users. The experimental group (N = 65) was followed closely for a 12-month period after obtaining amplification. Factors of degree of hearing loss, configuration of hearing loss, previous experience with hearing aids, daily use time, and circuit type were defined. Subjective tests included the "Understanding Speech" subsection of the Hearing Performance Inventory (HPI) (Giolas, Owens, Lamb, & Schubert, 1979; Lamb, Owens, & Schubert, 1983), an expectations checklist, a qualitative judgment task, and a satisfaction questionnaire that included items of use time, battery life, and main reason for satisfaction rating. Only those items of the HPI describing fairly quiet backgrounds showed significant change (improvement) over the year. The expectation checklist showed a mean reduction in score indicative of performance exceeding expectations. The qualitative judgment task did not significantly differentiate among the circuits used, although the linear circuit was judged as having better sound quality than those circuits considered to be noise-reduction. Correlations with the objective tests reported previously in Part I suggest a weak relationship between speech recognition performance and self-assessment of communication performance. Questions of the validity of subjective measures, the best time frame for obtaining outcome measures, and the usefulness of group data are addressed.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1993        PMID: 8377494     DOI: 10.1044/jshr.3604.820

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Speech Hear Res        ISSN: 0022-4685


  18 in total

1.  Hearing aid satisfaction: what does research from the past 20 years say?

Authors:  Lena L N Wong; Louise Hickson; Bradley McPherson
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2003

2.  Modeling and predicting hearing aid outcome.

Authors:  Larry E Humes
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2003

Review 3.  Digital noise reduction: an overview.

Authors:  Ruth Bentler; Li-Kuei Chiou
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2006-06

Review 4.  Adult aural rehabilitation: what is it and does it work?

Authors:  Arthur Boothroyd
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2007-06

5.  Curriculum for graduate courses in amplification.

Authors:  C V Palmer
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  1998-03

6.  Outcome measures in the hearing aid fitting/selection process.

Authors:  B E Weinstein
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  1997-12

7.  Is measured hearing aid benefit affected by seeing baseline outcome questionnaire responses?

Authors:  ShienPei Silverman; Megan Cates; Gabrielle Saunders
Journal:  Am J Audiol       Date:  2011-09-22       Impact factor: 1.493

8.  An examination of speech reception thresholds measured in a simulated reverberant cafeteria environment.

Authors:  Virginia Best; Gitte Keidser; Jörg M Buchholz; Katrina Freeston
Journal:  Int J Audiol       Date:  2015-09-02       Impact factor: 2.117

9.  Using a Digital Language Processor to Quantify the Auditory Environment and the Effect of Hearing Aids for Adults with Hearing Loss.

Authors:  Kelsey E Klein; Yu-Hsiang Wu; Elizabeth Stangl; Ruth A Bentler
Journal:  J Am Acad Audiol       Date:  2018-04       Impact factor: 1.664

10.  Satisfaction and compliance of adult patients using hearing aid and evaluation of factors affecting them.

Authors:  Mehmet Hakan Korkmaz; Ömer Bayır; Serap Er; Eray Işık; Güleser Saylam; Emel Çadallı Tatar; Ali Özdek
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2016-04-19       Impact factor: 2.503

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.