Download PDF
Semin Hear 2005; 26(3): 170-175
DOI: 10.1055/s-2005-916380
Published in 2005 by Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc., 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Hearing Aid Outcome Tools: What Are We Really Measuring? A Case Study

Maureen Connington1
  • 1Research and Development, Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, New York, New York
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
06 September 2005 (online)

Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

ABSTRACT

Measuring hearing aid benefit has been a task audiologists have dealt with since the beginning of our profession. Historically, benefit has been based on comparing aided and unaided speech reception thresholds, and speech recognition ability with several different hearing aids. When this procedure was found to lack validity, functional gain of hearing aids was assessed using different prescriptive approaches. More recently, real ear measurements have provided a more objective way of measuring aided benefit based on different target gain prescriptions. Although these measures provide a starting point for assessing the appropriateness of a particular fitting, hearing aid outcome measures have attempted to assess an individual's perceived reduction in hearing handicap in a quantitative way.

The Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly (HHIE) and HHIE, screening version (HHIE-S) have been used to measure an individual's perceived hearing handicap and as such have been helpful as counseling and orientation tools. More recently, these tools have been used as pre- and postfitting measures to attempt to quantify an individual's reduction in perceived handicap following amplification. A significant reduction in perceived handicap following the introduction of amplification would seem to indicate a successful fitting. Likewise, an individual reporting good subjective benefit with a hearing aid would probably demonstrate a significant reduction in perceived handicap following the introduction of amplification. However, this relationship remains to be demonstrated. Each individual brings different goals and expectations to the hearing aid fitting process. The degree to which a given hearing loss affects an individual's life may be related to lifestyle, occupation, academic concerns, psychological factors, and the influence of significant others.

The two cases presented bring into question the validity of using only hearing handicap scales as prefitting and postfitting measures to assess benefit with amplification.

Two individuals were fit binaurally, one with multichannel, multimemory digital hearing aids and one with analog wide dynamic range compression (WDRC) hearing aids. Both individuals exhibited a sloping high-frequency sensorineural hearing loss with fair to good speech recognition ability bilaterally. Although both individuals indicated that they were satisfied with amplification, their HHIE-S scores were quite different. The individual wearing digital hearing aids wore his aids only 3 hours per day and demonstrated no reduction in perceived handicap as measured by the HHIE-S. The individual wearing the analog WDRC hearing aids wore his aids 14 hours per day and revealed a significant reduction in perceived handicap as measured by the HHIE-S.

The results of these two case studies raise questions about the use of hearing handicap scales as pre- and postfitting tools to assess the benefits of amplification. Among the issues to be considered in the future are frequency of hearing aid use and its relation to hearing aid satisfaction, individual patients' expectations, and the administration of scales at various intervals after hearing aid fitting to chart long-term success.

KEYWORDS

Hearing aid benefit - hearing aid expectations - HHIE-S - impairment - outcomes - perceived handicap

REFERENCES

  • 1 Beck L. The role of outcome data in health-care resource allocation.  Ear Hear. 2000;  21 89-96
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Newman C, Hug G, Jacobson G, Weinstein B E, Malinoff R L. Practical method for quantifying hearing aid benefit in older adults.  J Am Acad Audiol. 1991;  2 70-75
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Weinstein B. The quantification of hearing aid benefit in the elderly: the role of self-assessment measures.  Acta Otolaryngol Suppl. 1991;  476 257-261
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Newman C, Weinstein B. The Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly as a measure of hearing aid benefit.  Ear Hear. 1988;  9 81-85
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Newman C, Weinstein B. Test-retest reliability of the Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly using two administration approaches.  Ear Hear. 1989;  10 190-191
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Newman C, Weinstein B, Jacobson G et al.. The Hearing Handicap Inventory for Adults: psychometric adequacy and audiometric correlates.  Ear Hear. 1990;  1 430-433
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Bess F. Applications of the hearing handicap inventory for the elderly-screening version (HHIE-S).  Hear J. 1995;  48 51-57
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Malinoff R, Weinstein B. Measurement of hearing aid benefit in the elderly.  Ear Hear. 1989;  10 354-356
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Baumfield A, Dillon H. Factors affecting the use and perceived benefit of ITE and BTE hearing aids.  Br J Audiol. 2001;  35 247-258
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Newman C, Weinstein B. Judgments of perceived handicap by hearing impaired elderly men and their spouses.  J Acad Rehabil Audiol. 1986;  19 109-115
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Schow R, Gatehouse S. Fundamental issues in self-assessment of hearing.  Ear Hear. 1990;  11 6S-16S
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Jerram J, Purdy S. Technology, expectations and adjustment to hearing loss: predictors of hearing aid outcome.  J Am Acad Audiol. 2001;  12 64-79
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Cox R, Alexander G. Expectations about hearing aids and their relationship to fitting outcome.  J Am Acad Audiol. 2000;  11 368-382
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar

Bibliography

  • 14 Chmiel R, Jerger J. Hearing aid use, central auditory disorder and hearing handicap in elderly persons.  J Am Acad Audiol. 1996;  3 190-202
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Cord MT, Leek M, Walden B. Speech recognition ability in noise and its relationship to perceived hearing aid benefit.  J Am Acad Audiol. 2000;  11 475-483
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Gatehouse S. Components and determinants of hearing aid benefit.  Ear Hear. 1994;  15 30-49
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Humes L, Garner C, Wilson D et al.. Hearing aid outcome measures following one month of hearing aid use by the elderly.  J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2001;  44 469-486
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Humes L, 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
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Lichtenstein M, Bess F, Logan S. Diagnostic performance of the Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly (screening version) against differing definitions of hearing loss.  Ear Hear. 1988;  9 208-211
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Maki-Torkki E, Brorsson B, Davis A et al.. Hearing impairment among adults-extent of the problem and scientific evidence on the outcome of hearing aid rehabilitation.  Scand Audiol. 2001;  54(suppl) 8-15
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Parving A, Parving I, Erlendson A et al.. Some experiences with hearing disability/handicap and quality of life measures.  Audiology. 2001;  40 208-214
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Schow R. Considerations in selecting and validating an adult/elderly hearing screening protocol.  Ear Hear. 1991;  12 337-348
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Schow R, Smedley T, Longhurst T. Self-assessment and impairment in adult/elderly hearing screening-recent data and new perspectives.  Ear Hear. 1990;  11 17S-27S
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 24 Schum D. Perceived hearing aid benefit in relation to perceived needs.  J Am Acad Audiol. 1999;  10 40-45
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 25 Surr R, Cord M, Walden B. Long-term versus short-term hearing aid benefit.  J Am Acad Audiol. 1998;  9 165-171
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 26 Turner C, Bentler R. Does hearing aid benefit increase over time?.  J Acoust Soc Am. 1998;  104 3673-3674
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 27 Ventry I, Weinstein B. The Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly: a new tool.  Ear Hear. 1982;  3 128-134
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 28 Walden B, Demorest M, Hepler E. Self-report approach to assessing benefit derived from amplification.  J Speech Hear Res. 1984;  27 49-56
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 29 Weinstein B. A review of hearing handicap scales.  Audiology. 1982;  9 91-109
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 30 Weinstein B. Assessing hearing handicap in the elderly.  Hear Aid J. 1982;  35 17-20
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 31 Weinstein B. Validity of screening protocol for identifying elderly people with hearing problems.  ASHA. 1986;  28 41-45
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 32 Weinstein B, Richards A, Montano J. Handicap versus impairment: an important distinction.  J Am Acad Audiol. 1995;  6 250-255
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 33 Weinstein B, Spitzer J, Ventry I. Test-retest reliability of the Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly.  Ear Hear. 1986;  7 295-299
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 34 Weinstein B, Ventry I. Audiometric correlates of the Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly.  J Speech Hear Disord. 1983;  48 379-384
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 35 Wiley T, Cruikshanks K, Nondahl D et al.. Self-reported hearing handicap and audiometric measures.  J Am Acad Audiol. 2000;  11 67-75
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 36 Yueh B, Souza P, McDowell J et al.. Randomized trial of amplification strategies.  Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2001;  127 197-204
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar

Maureen ConningtonPh.D. 

Research and Development, Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center

423 East 23rd Street, New York, NY 10010

Email: Maureen.connington@med.va.gov