Download PDF
J Am Acad Audiol 2018; 29(01): 025-034
DOI: 10.3766/jaaa.16102
Articles
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Clinical Application and Psychometric Properties of a Norwegian Questionnaire for the Self-Assessment of Communication in Quiet and Adverse Conditions Using Two Revised APHAB Subscales

Peder O. Laugen Heggdal
*   Department of Otolaryngology/Head and Neck Surgery, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway
†   Department of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
,
Øyvind Nordvik
‡   Faculty of Health and Social Sciences, Bergen University College, Bergen, Norway
,
Jonas Brännström
§   Department of Clinical Science, Section of Logopedics, Phoniatrics and Audiology, Lund University, Lund, Sweden
,
Flemming Vassbotn
*   Department of Otolaryngology/Head and Neck Surgery, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway
†   Department of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
,
Anne Kari Aarstad
*   Department of Otolaryngology/Head and Neck Surgery, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway
,
Hans Jørgen Aarstad
*   Department of Otolaryngology/Head and Neck Surgery, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway
†   Department of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
29 May 2020 (online)

   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background:

Difficulty in following and understanding conversation in different daily life situations is a common complaint among persons with hearing loss. To the best of our knowledge, there is currently no published validated Norwegian questionnaire available that allows for a self-assessment of unaided communication ability in a population with hearing loss.

Purpose:

The aims of the present study were to investigate a questionnaire for the self-assessment of communication ability, examine the psychometric properties of this questionnaire, and explore how demographic variables such as degree of hearing loss, age, and sex influence response patterns.

Research Design:

A questionnaire based on the subscales of the Norwegian translation of the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit was applied to a group of hearing aid users and normal-hearing controls.

Study Sample:

A total of 108 patients with bilateral hearing loss, and 101 controls with self-reported normal hearing.

Data Collection and Analysis:

The psychometric properties were evaluated. Associations and differences between outcome scores and descriptive variables were examined. A regression analysis was performed to investigate whether descriptive variables could predict outcome.

Results:

The measures of reliability suggest that the questionnaire has satisfactory psychometric properties, with the outcome of the questionnaire correlating to hearing loss severity, thus indicating that the concurrent validity of the questionnaire is good.

Conclusions:

The findings indicate that the proposed questionnaire is a valid measure of self-assessed communication ability in both quiet and adverse listening conditions in participants with and without hearing loss.

Key Words

communication - outcome - self-assessment
 

  • REFERENCES

  • Bagatto MP, Moodie ST, Seewald RC, Bartlett DJ, Scollie SD. 2011; A critical review of audiological outcome measures for infants and children. Trends Amplif 15 (01) 23-33
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Beck LB. 2000; The role of outcomes data in health-care resource allocation. Ear Hear 21 (04) (Suppl) 89S-96S
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Bowling A. 2005; Just one question: if one question works, why ask several?. J Epidemiol Community Health 59 (05) 342-345
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Cox RM, Alexander GC. 1995; The abbreviated profile of hearing aid benefit. Ear Hear 16 (02) 176-186
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Cox RM, Alexander GC, Gray GA. 2003; Audiometric correlates of the unaided APHAB. J Am Acad Audiol 14 (07) 361-371
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Gates GA, Mills JH. 2005; Presbycusis. Lancet 366 (9491) 1111-1120
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Helvik AS, Jacobsen G, Hallberg LR. 2006; Psychological well-being of adults with acquired hearing impairment. Disabil Rehabil 28 (09) 535-545
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Hickson L, Clutterbuck S, Khan A. 2010; Factors associated with hearing aid fitting outcomes on the IOI-HA. Int J Audiol 49 (08) 586-595
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Humes LE, Kidd GR, Lentz JJ. 2013; Auditory and cognitive factors underlying individual differences in aided speech-understanding among older adults. Front Syst Neurosci 7: 55
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Johnson JA, Cox RM, Alexander GC. 2010; Development of APHAB norms for WDRC hearing aids and comparisons with original norms. Ear Hear 31 (01) 47-55
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Kaiser HF. 1970; A second-generation little jiffy. Psychometrika 35 (04) 401-415
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Kaiser HF. 1974; Little Jiffy, Mark IV. Educ Psychol Meas 34: 111-117
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Kam ACS, Tong MCF, van Hasselt A. 2011; Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Chinese abbreviated profile of hearing aid benefit. Int J Audiol 50 (05) 334-339
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Knudsen LV, Öberg M, Nielsen C, Naylor G, Kramer SE. 2010; Factors influencing help seeking, hearing aid uptake, hearing aid use and satisfaction with hearing aids: a review of the literature. Trends Amplif 14 (03) 127-154
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Lee J, Paek I. 2014; In search of the optimal number of response categories in a rating scale. J Psychoed Assess 32 (07) 663-673
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Löhler J, Akcicek B, Wollenberg B, Kappe T, Schlattmann P, Schönweiler R. 2016; The influence of frequency-dependent hearing loss to unaided APHAB scores. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 273 (11) 3587-3593
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Lozano LM, Garcia-Cueto E, Muñiz J. 2008; Effect of the number of response categories on the reliability and validity of rating scales. Methodology 4: 73-79
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Marshall S, Haywood K, Fitzpatrick R. 2006; Impact of patient-reported outcome measures on routine practice: a structured review. J Eval Clin Pract 12 (05) 559-568
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Öberg M, Lunner T, Andersson G. 2007; Psychometric evaluation of hearing specific self-report measures and their associations with psychosocial and demographic variables. Audiol Med 5 (03) 188-199
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Preston CC, Colman AM. 2000; Optimal number of response categories in rating scales: reliability, validity, discriminating power, and respondent preferences. Acta Psychol (Amst) 104 (01) 1-15
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Saunders GH, Chisolm TH, Wallhagen MI. 2012; Older adults and hearing help-seeking behaviors. Am J Audiol 21 (02) 331-337
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Stark P, Hickson L. 2004; Outcomes of hearing aid fitting for older people with hearing impairment and their significant others. Int J Audiol 43 (07) 390-398
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar