Download PDF
Semin Hear 2001; 22(3): 303-316
DOI: 10.1055/s-2001-15633
Copyright © 2001 by Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc., 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA. Tel.: +1(212) 584-4662

Issues in Evaluating the Effectiveness of Hearing Aids in the Elderly: What to Measure and When

Larry E. Humes
  • Audiology Research Laboratory, Department of Speech and Hearing Sciences, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
31 December 2001 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

ABSTRACT

This article reviews recent findings from the author's laboratory on hearing-aid outcome measures for elderly hearing-aid wearers. A factor analysis of 26 hearing-aid outcome measures from 173 elderly hearing-aid wearers after 1 month of hearing aid use identified seven independent dimensions of hearing-aid outcome. Each of these dimensions is described, and viable clinical measures of performance for each dimension are discussed. Knowledge of when to obtain these outcome measures is as important as knowing what to measure. A brief review of prior data on acclimatization to hearing aids as well as of data from 134 elderly hearing-aid wearers evaluated in the author's laboratory after 1-month, 6-months, and 1-year of hearing aid use provides some guidance for this issue.

KEYWORD

Elderly - hearing aids - outcome measures - acclimatization

REFERENCES

  • 1 U.S. Bureau of the Census. Current Population Reports, Special Studies, 123-178, Sixty-Five Plus in America Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office; 1992
  • 2 Schoenborn C, Marano M. Current estimates from the National Health Interview Survey: United States, 1987. Vital and Health Statistics, 10, No 166. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office; 1988
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Kochkin S. MarkeTrak III: why 20 million in U.S. don't use hearing aids for their hearing loss. Part I.  Hear J . 1993;  46(1) 20-27
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Kochkin S. MarkeTrak III: why 20 million in U.S. don't use hearing aids for their hearing loss. Part II.  Hear J . 1993;  46(2) 26-31
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Kochkin S. MarkeTrak III: why 20 million in U.S. don't use hearing aids for their hearing loss. Part III.  Hear J . 1993;  46(4) 36-37
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Kochkin S. Customer satisfaction and subjective benefit with high-performance hearing instruments.  Hear Rev . 1996;  3(12) 16-26
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Kochkin S. Customer satisfaction with single and multiple microphone digital hearing aids.  Hear Rev . 2000;  7(11) 24-34
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Skafte M D. The 1999 hearing instrument market-the dispensers' perspective.  Hear Rev . 2000;  7(6) 8-40
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Tillman T W, Carhart R, Olsen W O. Hearing aid efficiency in a competing speech situation.  J Speech Hear Res . 1970;  13 789-811
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Plomp R. Auditory handicap of hearing impairment and the limited benefit of hearing aids.  J Acoust Soc Amer . 1978;  63 533-549
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Humes L E, Christensen L A, Bess F H, Hedley-Williams A. A comparison of the benefit provided by well-fit linear hearing aids and instruments with automatic reductions of low-frequency gain.  J Speech Lang Hear Res . 1997;  40 666-685
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Humes L E, Christensen L A, Thomas T, Bess F H, Hedley-Williams A, Bentler R. A comparison of the aided performance and benefit provided by a linear and a two-channel wide dynamic range compression hearing aid.  J Speech Lang Hear Res . 1999;  42 65-79
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Walden B E, Surr R K, Cord M T, Pavlovic C V. A clinical trial of the ReSound BT2 Personal Hearing System.  Am J Audiol . 1998;  7 85-100
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Walden B E, Surr R K, Cord M T, Pavlovic C V. A clinical trial of the ReSound IC4 hearing device.  Am J Audiol . 1999;  8 65-78
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Larson V D, Williams D W, Henderson W G. Efficacy of 3 commonly used hearing aid circuits: a crossover trial.  JAMA . 2000;  284 1806-1813
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Humes L E, Garner C B, Wilson D L, Barlow N N. Hearing-aid outcome measures following one month of hearing aid use by the elderly.  J Speech Lang Hear Res (in press).
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Bentler R, Niebuhr D, Getta J, Anderson C. Longitudinal study of hearing aid effectiveness. I: Objective measures.  J Speech Hear Res . 1993;  36 808-819
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Bentler R, Niebuhr D, Getta J, Anderson C. Longitudinal study of hearing aid effectiveness. II: Subjective measures.  J Speech Hear Res . 1993;  36 820-831
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Cox R, Alexander G. Maturation of hearing aid benefit: objective and subjective measurements.  Ear Hear . 1992;  13 131-141
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Cox R M, Alexander G C. Measuring satisfaction with amplification in daily life: the SADL scale.  Ear Hear . 1999;  20 306-320
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Dillon H, James A, Ginis J. 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 . 1997;  8 27-43
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Dillon H, Birtles G, Lovegrove R. Measuring the outcomes of a national rehabilitation program: normative data for the client oriented scale of improvement (COSI) and the hearing aid user's questionnaire (HAUQ).  J Am Acad Audiol . 1999;  10 67-79
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Gatehouse S. Determinants of self-reported disability in older subjects.  Ear Hear . 1990;  11 57S-65S
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Gatehouse S. Hearing aid evaluation: limitations of present procedures and future requirements.  J Speech Lang Pathol Audiol . 1993;  1(Mono Suppl) 50-57
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Gatehouse S. Components and determinants of hearing aid benefit.  Ear Hear . 1994;  15 30-49
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Gatehouse S. Glasgow Hearing aid benefit profile: derivation and validation of a client-centered outcome measure for hearing aid services.  J Am Acad Audiol . 1999;  10 80-103
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Humes L E. Dimensions of hearing aid outcome.  J Am Acad Audiol . 1999;  10 26-39
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Humes L E, Halling D, Coughlin M. Reliability and stability of various hearing aid outcome measures in a group of elderly hearing aid wearers.  J Speech Hear Res . 1996;  39 923-935
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Kochkin S. Subjective measures of satisfaction and benefit: establishing norms.  Semin Hear . 1997;  18 37-48
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Kochkin S. MarkeTrak V: consumer satisfaction revisited. Hear J .  2000;  53(1) 38-55
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Mueller G. Outcome measures: the truth about your hearing aid fittings.  Hear J . 1997;  50 21-32
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Mulrow C, Aguilar C, Endicott J. Quality of life changes and hearing impairment.  Ann Intern Med . 1990;  113 188-194
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Mulrow C, Tuley M, Aguilar C. Sustained benefits of hearing aids.  J Speech Hear Res . 1992;  35 1402-1405
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Mulrow C, Tuley M, Aguilar C. Correlates of successful hearing aid use in older adults.  Ear Hear . 1992;  13 108-113
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Newman C W, Sandridge S A. Benefit from, satisfaction with, and cost-effectiveness of three different hearing aid technologies.  Am J Audiol . 1998;  7 115-128
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Schum D J. Perceived hearing aid benefit in relation to perceived needs.  J Am Acad Audiol . 1999;  10 40-45
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Stelmachowicz P G. Hearing aid outcome measures for children.  J Am Acad Audiol . 1999;  10 14-25
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Walden B E. Toward a model clinical-trials protocol for substantiating hearing aid user-benefit claims.  Am J Audiol . 1997;  6 13-24
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Walden B E, Surr R K, Cord M T, Edwards B, Olson L. Comparison of benefits provided by different hearing aid technologies.  J Am Acad Audiol . 2000;  11 540-560
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Weinstein B. Treatment efficacy: Hearing aids in the management of hearing loss in adults.  J Speech Hear Res . 1996;  39 S37-S45
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Weinstein B. Outcome measures in the hearing aid fitting/selection process.  Trends Amplification . 1997;  2 117-137
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Walden B E, Demorest M E, Hepler E L. Self-report approach to assessing benefit derived from amplification.  J Speech Hear Res . 1984;  27 49-56
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Hosford-Dunn H, Halpern J. Clinical application of the satisfaction with amplification in daily life scale in private practice. I: Statistical, content and factorial validity.  J Am Acad Audiol . 2000;  11 523-539
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Hosford-Dunn H L, Halpern J. Clinical application of the SADL scale in private practice. II: Predictive validity of fitting variables.  J Am Acad Audiol . 2001;  12 15-36
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Cox R M, Alexander G C. The abbreviated profile of hearing aid benefit.  Ear Hear . 1995;  16 176-186
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Schum D. Responses of elderly hearing aid users on the hearing aid performance inventory.  J Am Acad Audiol . 1992;  3 308-314
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Dillon H. Shortened hearing aid performance inventory for the elderly (SHAPIE): a statistical approach.  Aust J Audiol . 1994;  16 37-48
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Ventry I, Weinstein B. The hearing handicap inventory for the elderly: a new tool.  Ear Hear . 1982;  3 128-134
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Malinoff R, Weinstein B. Measurement of hearing aid benefit in the elderly.  Ear Hear . 1989;  10 354-356
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Levitt H, Resnick S B. Speech reception by the hearing impaired: methods of testing and development of materials.  Scand Audiol Suppl . 1978;  6 107-129
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Cox R, Alexander G, Gilmore C, Puskalich K M. Use of the connected speech test (CST) with hearing-impaired listeners.  Ear Hear . 1988;  9 198-207
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Humes L E, Watson B U, Christensen L A, Cokely C G, Halling D C, Lee L. Factors associated with individual differences in clinical measures of speech recognition among the elderly.  J Speech Lang Hear Res . 1994;  37 465-474
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Gabrielsson A, Schenkman B N, Hagerman B. The effects of different frequency responses on sound quality judgments and speech intelligibility.  J Speech Hear Res . 1988;  31 166-177
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Cox R M, McDaniel D M. Development of the speech intelligibility rating (SIR) test for hearing aid comparisons.  J Speech Hear Res . 1989;  32 347-352
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Gatehouse S. The time course and magnitude of perceptual acclimatization to frequency responses: evidence from monaural fitting of hearing aids.  J Acoust Soc Am . 1992;  92 1258-1268
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 56 Turner C W, Humes L E, Bentler R A, Cox R M. A review of past research on changes in hearing aid benefit over time.  Ear Hear . 1996;  17 14S-25S
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 57 Saunders G H, Cienkowski K M. Acclimatization to hearing aids.  Ear Hear . 1997;  18 129-139
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 58 Surr R, Cord M, Walden B. Long-term versus short-term hearing aid benefit.  J Am Acad Audiol . 1998;  9 165-171
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
      >