Download PDF
J Am Acad Audiol 2022; 33(03): 158-169
DOI: 10.1055/a-1674-0060
Research Article

Personal Characteristics Associated with Ecological Momentary Assessment Compliance in Adult Cochlear Implant Candidates and Users

Yu-Hsiang Wu
1   Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa
,
Elizabeth Stangl
1   Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa
,
Jacob Oleson
2   Department of Biostatistics, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa
,
Kristen Caraher
3   Department of Psychiatry, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa
,
Camille Dunn
4   Department of Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa
› Author Affiliations Funding The present study was supported by research grants R01DC015997 and P50DC000242 from the National Institutes on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders, National Institutes of Health.
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) often places high physical and mental burden on research participants compared with retrospective self-reports. The high burden could result in noncompliance with the EMA sampling scheme protocol. It has been a concern that certain types of participants could be more likely to have low compliance, such as those who have severe hearing loss and poor speech recognition performance, are employed, are not familiar with technologies used to implement EMA (e.g., smartphones), and have poorer cognitive abilities. Noncompliance dependent on personal characteristics could negatively impact the generalizability of EMA research.

Purpose This article aims to determine personal characteristics associated with EMA compliance in a group of adult cochlear implant (CI) candidates and users.

Research Design An observational study.

Study Sample Fifty-eight adults who were either scheduled to received CIs or were experienced CI users completed the study.

Data Collection and Analysis Participants conducted smartphone-based EMA designed to assess an individual's daily auditory ecology for 1 week. EMA compliance was quantified using two metrics: the number of completed surveys and the response rate to the notification delivered by the EMA app. Personal characteristics (i.e., predictors) included age, gender, CI status (candidate or user), employment status (employed or not employed), smartphone ownership, speech recognition performance, social network size, level of depressive symptoms, and neurocognitive abilities. A word recognition test, questionnaires, and a test battery of neurocognitive assessments were used to measure the predictors. We used negative binomial regression and logistic mixed models to determine the factors associated with the number of completed surveys and the response rate, respectively. We hypothesized that, for example, employed participants with poorer speech recognition performance would have lower compliance.

Results Contrary to the hypothesis, word recognition score was negatively associated with the number of completed surveys (p = 0.022). Holding all other variables constant, a 10-point (i.e., 10%) word recognition score decrease was associated with an 11% increase in the number of completed surveys. For the response rate, employment status was the only significant predictor (p < 0.0001). Consistent with our hypothesis, the odds of responding to EMA notifications for those who are not employed are 82% higher than the odds for those who are employed. No other studied personal characteristic was associated with compliance.

Conclusion For CI candidates and users, EMA compliance could be affected by personal characteristics such as speech recognition performance and employment status. Because (1) participants with poorer speech recognition performance do not necessarily have lower compliance and (2) most personal characteristics investigated in the present study (e.g., age, gender, smartphone ownership, and neurocognitive abilities) do not predict compliance, a wide range of participants could successfully conduct smartphone-based EMA.

Keywords

ecological momentary assessment - cochlear implant - compliance

Disclaimer

The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views, positions, or policies of the National Institutes of Health, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, or of the United States government.




Publication History

Received: 30 July 2021

Accepted: 15 October 2021

Accepted Manuscript online:
20 October 2021

Article published online:
10 October 2022

© 2022. American Academy of Audiology. This article is published by Thieme.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Shiffman S, Stone AA, Hufford MR. Ecological momentary assessment. Annu Rev Clin Psychol 2008; 4: 1-32
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Timmer BHB, Hickson L, Launer S. Ecological momentary assessment: feasibility, construct validity, and future applications. Am J Audiol 2017; 26 (3S): 436-442
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Wu YH, Stangl E, Zhang X, Bentler RA. Construct validity of the ecological momentary assessment in audiology research. J Am Acad Audiol 2015; 26 (10) 872-884
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Jenstad LM, Singh G, Boretzki M. et al. Ecological momentary assessment: a field evaluation of subjective ratings of speech in noise. Ear Hear 2021; 42 (06) 1770-1781
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Wu YH, Stangl E, Chipara O, Gudjonsdottir A, Oleson J, Bentler R. Comparison of in-situ and retrospective self-reports on assessing hearing aid outcomes. J Am Acad Audiol 2020; 31 (10) 746-762
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Wu YH, Stangl E, Chipara O, Zhang X. Test-retest reliability of ecological momentary assessment in audiology research. J Am Acad Audiol 2020; 31 (08) 599-612
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Holube I, von Gablenz P, Bitzer J. Ecological momentary assessment in hearing research: current state, challenges, and future directions. Ear Hear 2020; 41 (Suppl. 01) 79S-90S
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Wu YH, Bentler RA. Impact of visual cues on directional benefit and preference: part II–field tests. Ear Hear 2010; 31 (01) 35-46
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Wu YH, Bentler RA. Do older adults have social lifestyles that place fewer demands on hearing?. J Am Acad Audiol 2012; 23 (09) 697-711
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Preminger JE, Cunningham DR. Case-study analysis of various field study measures. J Am Acad Audiol 2003; 14 (01) 39-55
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Walden BE, Surr RK, Cord MT, Dyrlund O. Predicting hearing aid microphone preference in everyday listening. J Am Acad Audiol 2004; 15 (05) 365-396
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Bentler R, Wu YH, Kettel J, Hurtig R. Digital noise reduction: outcomes from laboratory and field studies. Int J Audiol 2008; 47 (08) 447-460
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Galvez G, Turbin MB, Thielman EJ, Istvan JA, Andrews JA, Henry JA. Feasibility of ecological momentary assessment of hearing difficulties encountered by hearing aid users. Ear Hear 2012; 33 (04) 497-507
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Wu YH, Stangl E, Chipara O, Hasan SS, DeVries S, Oleson J. Efficacy and effectiveness of advanced hearing aid directional and noise reduction technologies for older adults with mild to moderate hearing loss. Ear Hear 2019; 40 (04) 805-822
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Timmer BHB, Hickson L, Launer S. Do hearing aids address real-world hearing difficulties for adults with mild hearing impairment? Results from a pilot study using ecological momentary assessment. Trends Hear 2018; 22: 2331216518783608
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 von Gablenz P, Kowalk U, Bitzer J, Meis M, Holube I. Individual hearing aid benefit in real life evaluated using ecological momentary assessment. Trends Hear 2021; 25: 2331216521990288
    Google Scholar
  • 17 Schinkel-Bielefeld N, Kunz P, Zutz A, Buder B. Evaluation of hearing aids in everyday life using ecological momentary assessment: what situations are we missing?. Am J Audiol 2020; 29 (3S): 591-609
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Wu YH, Xu J, Stangl E. et al. Why ecological momentary assessment surveys go incomplete: when it happens and how it impacts data. J Am Acad Audiol 2021; 32 (01) 16-26
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Henry JA, Galvez G, Turbin MB, Thielman EJ, McMillan GP, Istvan JA. Pilot study to evaluate ecological momentary assessment of tinnitus. Ear Hear 2012; 33 (02) 179-290
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Stone AA, Shiffman S. Capturing momentary, self-report data: a proposal for reporting guidelines. Ann Behav Med 2002; 24 (03) 236-243
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Fuller-Tyszkiewicz M, Skouteris H, Richardson B, Blore J, Holmes M, Mills J. Does the burden of the experience sampling method undermine data quality in state body image research?. Body Image 2013; 10 (04) 607-613
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Rintala A, Wampers M, Myin-Germeys I, Viechtbauer W. Response compliance and predictors thereof in studies using the experience sampling method. Psychol Assess 2019; 31 (02) 226-235
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Alliger GM, Williams KJ. Using signal-contingent experience sampling methodology to study work in the field: a discussion and illustration examining task perceptions and mood. Person Psychol 1993; 46 (03) 525-549
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Burke LA, Naylor G. Daily-life fatigue in mild to moderate hearing impairment: an ecological momentary assessment study. Ear Hear 2020; 41 (06) 1518-1532
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Sokolovsky AW, Mermelstein RJ, Hedeker D. Factors predicting compliance to ecological momentary assessment among adolescent smokers. Nicotine Tob Res 2014; 16 (03) 351-358
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Xu J, Wu YH, Stangl E, Crukley J, Pentony S, Galster J. Using smartphone-based ecological momentary assessment in audiology research: the participants' perspective. Am J Audiol 2020; 29 (04) 935-943
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Lukasiewicz M, Fareng M, Benyamina A, Blecha L, Reynaud M, Falissard B. Ecological momentary assessment in addiction. Expert Rev Neurother 2007; 7 (08) 939-950
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Bos FM, Schoevers RA, aan het Rot M. Experience sampling and ecological momentary assessment studies in psychopharmacology: a systematic review. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol 2015; 25 (11) 1853-1864
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Cain AE, Depp CA, Jeste DV. Ecological momentary assessment in aging research: a critical review. J Psychiatr Res 2009; 43 (11) 987-996
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Granholm E, Loh C, Swendsen J. Feasibility and validity of computerized ecological momentary assessment in schizophrenia. Schizophr Bull 2008; 34 (03) 507-514
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Hartley S, Varese F, Vasconcelos e Sa D. et al. Compliance in experience sampling methodology: the role of demographic and clinical characteristics. Psychosis 2014; 6 (01) 70-73
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Vachon H, Viechtbauer W, Rintala A, Myin-Germeys I. Compliance and retention with the experience sampling method over the continuum of severe mental disorders: meta-analysis and recommendations. J Med Internet Res 2019; 21 (12) e14475
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Morren M, van Dulmen S, Ouwerkerk J, Bensing J. Compliance with momentary pain measurement using electronic diaries: a systematic review. Eur J Pain 2009; 13 (04) 354-365
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Courvoisier DS, Eid M, Lischetzke T. Compliance to a cell phone-based ecological momentary assessment study: the effect of time and personality characteristics. Psychol Assess 2012; 24 (03) 713-720
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Hasan SS, Lai F, Chipara O, Wu YH. AudioSense: enabling real-time evaluation of hearing aid technology in-situ. Paper presented at: 26th IEEE International Symposium on Computer-Based Medical Systems; 2013; Porto, Portugal
    Google Scholar
  • 36 Hasan SS, Chipara O, Wu YH, Aksan N. Evaluating auditory contexts and their impacts on hearing aid outcomes with mobile phones. Paper presented at: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Pervasive Computing Technologies for Healthcare; 2014; Oldenburg, Germany
    Google Scholar
  • 37 Dunn CC, Stangl E, Oleson J, Smith M, Chipara O, Wu YH. The influence of forced social isolation on the auditory ecology and psychosocial functions of listeners with cochlear implants during COVID-19 mitigation efforts. Ear Hear 2020; 42 (01) 20-28
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Tillman TW, Carhart R. An expanded test for speech discrimination utilizing CNC monosyllabic words: Northwestern University Auditory Test No. 6 (Tech. Rep. No. SAM-TR-66–55). Brooks Air Force Base, TX: USAF School of Aerospace Medicine; 1966
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Cohen S, Doyle WJ, Skoner DP, Rabin BS, Gwaltney Jr JM. Social ties and susceptibility to the common cold. JAMA 1997; 277 (24) 1940-1944
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Beck AT, Steer RA, Brown GK. Manual for the Beck Depression Inventory-II. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation; 1996
    Google Scholar
  • 41 Wilkinson G, Robertson G. Wide Range Achievement Test 4 Professional Manual. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources; 2006
    Google Scholar
  • 42 Benedict RHB, Schretlen D, Groninger L, Dobraski M, Shpritz B. Revision of the Brief Visuospatial Memory Test: studies of normal performance, reliability, and validity. Psychol Assess 1996; 8 (02) 145-153
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Benedict RHB, Schretlen D, Groninger L, Brandt J. Hopkins Verbal Learning Test Revised: normative data and analysis of inter-form and test-retest reliability. Clin Neuropsychol 1998; 12 (01) 43-55
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Wechsler D. Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale–IV. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation; 2008
    Google Scholar
  • 45 Reitan R. Validity of the Trail Making Test as an indication of organic brain damage. Percept Mot Skills 1958; (08) 271-276
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Wen CKF, Schneider S, Stone AA, Spruijt-Metz D. Compliance with mobile ecological momentary assessment protocols in children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Med Internet Res 2017; 19 (04) e132
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Albert MS, DeKosky ST, Dickson D. et al. The diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer's disease: recommendations from the National Institute on Aging-Alzheimer's Association workgroups on diagnostic guidelines for Alzheimer's disease. Alzheimers Dement 2011; 7 (03) 270-279
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Hessen E, Stav AL, Auning E. et al. Neuropsychological profiles in mild cognitive impairment due to Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases. J Parkinsons Dis 2016; 6 (02) 413-421
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Sachs-Ericsson N, Blazer DG. The new DSM-5 diagnosis of mild neurocognitive disorder and its relation to research in mild cognitive impairment. Aging Ment Health 2015; 19 (01) 2-12
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Goldman JG, Holden S, Bernard B, Ouyang B, Goetz CG, Stebbins GT. Defining optimal cutoff scores for cognitive impairment using Movement Disorder Society Task Force criteria for mild cognitive impairment in Parkinson's disease. Mov Disord 2013; 28 (14) 1972-1979
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Caviness JN, Driver-Dunckley E, Connor DJ. et al. Defining mild cognitive impairment in Parkinson's disease. Mov Disord 2007; 22 (09) 1272-1277
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Duff K, Paulsen J, Mills J. et al; PREDICT-HD Investigators and Coordinators of the Huntington Study Group. Mild cognitive impairment in prediagnosed Huntington disease. Neurology 2010; 75 (06) 500-507
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Winblad B, Palmer K, Kivipelto M. et al. Mild cognitive impairment–beyond controversies, towards a consensus: report of the International Working Group on Mild Cognitive Impairment. J Intern Med 2004; 256 (03) 240-246
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Petersen RC, Stevens JC, Ganguli M, Tangalos EG, Cummings JL, DeKosky ST. Practice parameter: early detection of dementia: mild cognitive impairment (an evidence-based review). Report of the Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology. Neurology 2001; 56 (09) 1133-1142
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar