Download PDF
J Am Acad Audiol 1999; 10(02): 80-103
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1748460
Original Article

Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit Profile: Derivation and Validation of a Client-centered Outcome Measure for Hearing Aid Services

Stuart Gatehouse
MRC Institute of Hearing Research (Scottish Section), Glasgow, Scotland
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
  PDF Download  Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

The Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit Profile (GHABP) has been derived, optimized, and verified as an instrument suitable for application in the context of the evaluation of the efficacy and effectiveness of rehabilitative services for hearing-impaired adults. The profile produces scales of preintervention disability, handicap, reported hearing aid use, reported benefit, satisfaction, and residual disability, obtained over a combination of prespecified listening circumstances and those nominated by individual hearing-impaired listeners. A validity criterion for the GHABP and other contenders for use in the evaluation of such services is proposed and justified. The outcome scales from the GHABP are demonstrated to exhibit the power to discriminate between hearing aid fittings, and the instrument is proposed as a suitable candidate for a routine service monitoring indicator as part of a program of quality assurance and standards.

Abbreviations: GHABP = Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit Profile, HDABI = Hearing Disability and Aid Benefit Interview, SII = Speech Intelligibility Index

Key Words

Benefit - disability - handicap - hearing aid


Publication History

Article published online:
27 April 2022

© 1999. 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

  • American National Standards Institute. (1969). American National Standards Methods for the Calculation of the Articulation Index. ANSI S3.5–1969. New York: American National Standards Institute.
  • American National Standards Institute. (1993). Proposed American National Standard Methods for the Calculation of the Speech Intelligibility Index. ANSI S3.5 Draft V.3.1–1993. New York: American National Standards Institute.
  • Berger KW. (1990). The use of an articulation index to compare three hearing aid prescription methods. Audecibel 39(Summer): 16–19.
  • Berger KW. (1991). Results from three prescriptive fitting methods using two modified articulation index procedures. Audecibel 40:22–23.
  • British Society of Audiology. (1985). Recommended procedure for pure-tone bone-conduction audiometry without masking using a manually operated instrument. Br J Audiol 19:281–282.
  • British Society of Audiology. (1986). Recommendations for masking in pure tone threshold audiometry. Br J Audiol 20:307–314.
  • British Society of Audiology. (1987). Recommended procedure for uncomfortable loudness level (ULL). Br J Audiol 21:231.
  • British Society of Audiology. (1989). Recommended format for audiogram forms. Br J Audiol 23:265–266.
  • Brooks D. (1990). Measures for the assessment of hearing aid provision and rehabilitation. Br J Audiol 24:229–233.
  • Brooks DN. (1996). The time course of adaptation to hearing aid use. Br J Audiol 30:55–62.
  • Brooks DN, Johnson DW. (1981). Pre-issue assessment and counselling as a component of hearing aid provision. Br J Audiol 15:13–19.
  • Cox RM. (1997). Administration and application of the APHAB. Hear J 50(4):32–48.
  • Cox RM, Alexander GC. (1995). The Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit. Ear Hear 16:176–186.
  • Cox RM, Gilmore C. (1990). Development of the Profile of Hearing Aid Performance (PHAP). J Speech Hear Res 33:343–357.
  • Cox RM, Gilmore C, Alexander GC. (1991). Comparison of two questionnaires for patient-assessed hearing aid benefit. J Am Acad Audiol 2:134–145.
  • Cox RM, Rivera IN. (1992). Predictability and reliability of hearing aid benefit measured using the PHAB. J Am Acad Audiol 3:242–254.
  • Davis AC. (1995). Hearing in Adults. London: Whurr.
  • Dillon H, James A, Ginis J. (1997). The Client Oriented Scale of Improvement (COSI) and its relationship to several other measures of benefit and satisfaction provided by hearing aids. J Am Acad Audiol 8:27–43.
  • Dillon H, Koritschoner E, Battaglia J, Lovegrove R, Ginis J, Mavrias G, Carnie L, Ray P, Forsythe L, Towers E, Goulias H, Macaskill F. (1991). Rehabilitation effectiveness 1: assessing the needs of clients entering a national hearing program. Aust J Audiol 13(2):55–65.
  • Gatehouse S. (1990). Determinants of self-reported disability in older subjects. Ear Hear 11(5):57S-65S.
  • Gatehouse S. (1993). Hearing aid evaluation: limitations of present procedures and future requirements. J Speech Lang Pathol Assoc Monogr Suppl 1:50–57.
  • Gatehouse S. (1994). Components and determinants of hearing aid benefit. Ear Hear 15:30–49.
  • Gatehouse S. (1997). Outcome Measures for the Evaluation of Adult Hearing Aid Fittings and Services. Scientific and Technical Report to the Department of Health. MAC Institute of Hearing Research, London.
  • Gatehouse S, Helmsley R, Axon S, McHardy G, Whiteside M. (1997). An Investigation into the Service Implications and Benefits of Provision of Modular In-the-ear Hearing Aids by the National Health Service in Scotland. Report to the Hearing Aid Commodity Advisory Panel of Scottish Healthcare Supplies. Common Services Agency, Edinburgh.
  • Lichtenstein MJ, Bess FH, Logan SA. (1988). Diagnostic performance of the hearing handicap inventory for the elderly (screening version) against differing definitions of hearing loss. Ear Hear 9:208–211.
  • Mueller HG, Hawkins DB, Northern JL. (1992). Probe Microphone Measurements. Hearing Aid Selection and Measurement. San Diego: Singular Publishing Group.
  • Mulrow CD, Tuley MR, Aguilar C. (1990). Discriminating and responsiveness abilities of two hearing handicap scales. Ear Hear 11:176–180.
  • Newman CW, Weinstein BE. (1988). The Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly as a measure of hearing aid benefit. Ear Hear 9:81–85.
  • Oja GL, Schow RL. (1984). Hearing aid evaluation based on measures of benefit, use, and satisfaction. Ear Hear 5:77–86.
  • Rankovic CM. (1991). An application of the articulation index to hearing aid fitting. J Speech Hear Res 34:391–402.
  • Schow RL, Gatehouse S. (1990). Fundamental issues in self-assessment of hearing. Ear Hear ll(5[Suppl]):6s-15s.
  • Stephens D, Hetu R. (1991). Impairment, disability and handicap in audiology: towards a consensus. Audiology 30:185–200.
  • Streiner DL, Norman GR. (1989). Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to Their Development and Use. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Tannahill JC. (1979). The hearing handicap scale as a speech measure of hearing aid benefit. J Speech Hear Disord 44:9–99.
  • Ventry IM, Weinstein BE. (1982). The Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly: a new tool. Ear Hear 3:128–134.
  • Weinstein BE, Spitzer JB, Ventry IM. (1986). Test-retest Reliability of the Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly. Ear Hear 7:295–299.
  • Weinstein BE, Ventry IM. (1983). Audiometrie correlates of the hearing handicap inventory for the elderly. J Speech Hear Disord 48:379–384.