Development of the Three-Clinic Hearing Aid Selection Profile (HASP)

Abstract

The Three-Clinic Hearing Aid Selection Profile (HASP) was developed to assess a patient's beliefs about a number of basic considerations felt to be critical to the hearing aid selection (HAS) process. These characteristics are felt to be key to the acceptance of amplification and include motivation, expectations, cost of goods and services, appearance (cosmesis), attitudes about technology, physical function/limitations, communication needs, and lifestyle. The results of the first investigation suggest that we have been successful in developing a 40–item metric with adequate internal consistency reliability that assesses the aforementioned characteristics. Second, results of the administration of this tool to a large group of individuals indicated that (1) age impacted scores on the Technology, Physical Function, and Communicative Needs subscales; (2) gender impacted scores on the Motivation, Expectation, Technology, Communicative Needs, and Appearance subscales; (3) previous hearing aid use affected scores on the Motivation subscale; (4) level of education impacted scores on the Physical Function and Lifestyle subscales; and (5) self-perceived hearing handicap had an effect on Motivation and Communicative Needs subscale scores. Percentile data collected from this subject sample are presented as a benchmark against which to evaluate responses from individual patients. Case studies are presented to illustrate the potential clinical utility of this device.

Abbreviations: ANOVA = analysis of variance, CIC = completely in the canal, COSI = Client Oriented Scale of Improvement, DSP = digital signal processing, HAS = hearing aid selection, HASP = Hearing Aid Selection Profile, HHIA = Hearing Handicap Inventory for Adults, HHIE = Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly

Keywords

Amplification - expectations - hearing aid - outcomes measures - satisfaction

• REFERENCES

• Brooks DN, Hallam RS. (1998). Attitudes to hearing difficulty and hearing aids and the outcome of audiological rehabilitation. BrJ Audiol 32:217–226.
• Cox RM, Alexander GC. (1995). The Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB). Ear Hear 16:176–186.
• Dillon H, James A, Ginis J. (1997). 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.
• Dodds E, Harford E. (1982). A community hearing conservation program for senior citizens. Ear Hear 3:160–166.
• Dunkle RE, Kart CS. (1991). Social aspects of aging and communication. In: Ripich DN, ed. Handbook of Geriatric Communication Disorders. Austin, Tx: Pro-Ed, 81–96.
• Erdman SA, Demorest ME. (1998). Adjustment to hearing impairment II: audiological and demographic correlates. J Speech Hear Res 41:123–136.
• Garstecki DC, Erler SF. (1996). Older adult performance on the Communication Profile for the Hearing Impaired. J Speech Hear Res 39:28–42.
• Garstecki DC, Erler SF. (1998). Hearing loss, control, and demographic factors influencing hearing aid use among older adults. J Speech Hear Res 41:527–537.
• Gordon-Salant S, Lantz J, Fitzgibbons P. (1994). Age effects on measures of hearing disability. Ear Hear 15:262–265.
• Kochkin S. (1994a). MarkeTrak IV: impact on purchase intent of cosmetics, stigma, and style of hearing instrument. Hear J 47(9): 1–7.
• Kochkin S. (1994b). MarkeTrak IV: will CICs attract a new type of customer—and what about price? Hear J 47(ll):49–54.
• Kochkin S. (1997). MarkeTrak IV: what is the viable market for hearing aids? Hear J 50(l):31–38.
• Kochkin S. (1998). MarkeTrak IV: correlates of hearing aid purchase intent. Hear J 51(l):30–38.
• Kochkin S. (1999). MarkeTrak V: "baby boomers" spur growth in potential market, but penetration rate declines. Hear J 52(l):33–48.
• Mulrow CD, Aguilar C, Endicott JE, Tuley MR, Velez R, Charlip WS, Rhodes MC, Hill JA, DeNino LA. (1990). Quality-of-life changes and hearing impairment: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med 113:188–194.
• Newman CW, Sandridge SA. (1998). Benefit from, satisfaction with, and cost-effectiveness of three different hearing aid technologies. Am J Audiol 7:115–128.
• Newman CW, Weinstein BE, Jacobson GP, Hug GA. (1991). Test-retest reliability of the Hearing Handicap Inventory for Adults. Ear Hear 12:355–357.
• Ricketts T, Dhar S. (1999). Comparison of performance across three directional hearing aids. J Am Acad Audiol 10:180–189.
• Taylor KS. (1993). Self-perceived and audiometric evaluations of hearing aid benefit in the elderly. Ear Hear 14:390–394.
• Valente M, Sammeth CA, Potts JL, Wynne MK, Wagner-Escobar M, Coughlin M. (1997). Differences in performance between Oticon Multifocus Compact and ReSound BT2–E hearing aids. J Am Acad Audiol 8:280–293.
• van den Brink RH, Wit HP, Kempen GI, van Heuvelen MJ. (1996). Attitude and help-seeking for hearing impairment. Br J Audiol 30:313–324.
• Walden BE, Demorest ME, Hepler EE. (1984). Self-report approach to assessment benefit derived from amplification. J Speech Hear Res 27:49–56.
• Weinstein B. (1986). Validity of a screening protocol for identifying elderly people with hearing problems. ASHA
• 28:41–45.
• Weinstein BE. (1996). Treatment efficacy: hearing aids in the management of hearing loss in adults. J Speech Hear Res 39:S37–S45.
• Weinstein BE, Ventry IM. (1983). Audiometric correlations of the Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly. J Speech Hear Disord 48:379–384.