Download PDF
J Am Acad Audiol 1999; 10(01): 26-39
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1748328
Original Article

Dimensions of Hearing Aid Outcome

Larry E. Humes
Department of Speech and Hearing Sciences, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
  PDF Download  Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Dimensions of hearing aid outcome are explored in this paper. First, a variety of hearing aid outcome measures is defined including objective and subjective performance, objective and subjective benefit, satisfaction, and use. Following the definition of these terms, factor analysis is described as a statistical tool that can be of assistance in establishing the number and nature of the relevant dimensions of hearing aid outcome. Next, the results from three recent studies that included a variety of measures of hearing aid outcome are examined and factor analysis is applied to the data from each study. This examination leads to the conclusion that hearing aid outcome is a multidimensional construct, rather than unidimensional. The most complete description of hearing aid outcome will be obtained when including at least one measure of aided speech recognition performance, one or more measures of objective benefit in speech recognition, one or two subjective measures of sound quality or listening effort, and one measure of either subjective benefit, satisfaction, or use.

Abbreviations: COSI = Client-Oriented Scale of Improvement; CST = Connected Speech Test; HAPI = Hearing Aid Performance Inventory; HHIE = Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly; ITC = in the canal; PHAB = Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit; REAR = real-ear aided response; REIG = real-ear insertion gain; REUR = real-ear unaided response

Key Words

Factor analysis - hearing aid benefit - hearing aid outcome - hearing aid satisfaction - hearing aid usage


Publication History

Article published online:
23 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

  • Byrne D, Dillon Η. (1986). The National Acoustic Laboratories' (NAL) new procedure for selecting the gain and frequency response of a hearing aid. Ear Hear 7:257–265.
  • Carstairs V. (1963). Utilization of hearing aids issued by the National Health Service. Br J Audiol 7:72–76.
  • Cox RM, Alexander GC. (1992.) Maturation of hearing aid benefit: subjective and objective measurements. Ear Hear 13:131–141.
  • Cox RM, Alexander GC. (1995). The Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit. Ear Hear 16:176–186.
  • Cox RM, Alexander G, Gilmore C, Puskalich KM. (1988). Use of the Connected Speech Test (CST) with hearing-impaired listeners. Ear Hear 9:198–207.
  • Cox RM, Gilmore C, Alexander GC. (1991). Comparison of two questionnaires for patient assessed hearing aid benefit. J Am Acad Audiol 2:134–145.
  • Dillon H. (1994). Shortened Hearing Aid Performance Inventory for the Elderly (SHAPIE): a statistical approach. Aust J Audiol 16:37–8.
  • 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.
  • Fino MS, Bess FH, Lichtenstein MJ, Logan SA. (1992). Factors differentiating elderly hearing aid wearers vs. non-wearers. Hear Instr 43(2):6–10.
  • Gabrielsson A, Schenkman BN, Hagerman Β. (1988). The effects of different frequency responses on sound quality judgments and speech intelligibility. J Speech Hear Res 31:166–177.
  • Gatehouse S. (1994). Components and determinants of hearing aid benefit. Ear Hear 15:30–49.
  • Haggard MP, Foster JR, Iredale FE. (1981). Use and benefit of postaural aids in sensory hearing loss. Scand Audiol 10:45–52.
  • Humes LE, Watson BU, Christensen LA, Cokely CA, Hailing DA, Lee L. (1994). Factors associated with individual differences in clinical measures of speech recognition among the elderly. J Speech Hear Res 37:465–474.
  • Humes LE, Hailing D, Coughlin M. (1996). Reliability and stability of various hearing-aid outcome measures in a group of elderly hearing-aid wearers. J Speech Hear Res 39:923–935.
  • Humes LE, Christensen LA, Bess FH, Hedley-Williams A. (1997). 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 40:666–685.
  • Jerger J, Chmiel R. (1997). Factor analytic structure of auditory impairment in elderly persons. J Am Acad Audiol 8:269–276.
  • Kapteyn TS. (1977a). Satisfaction with fitted hearing aids. I. Scand Audiol 6:147–156.
  • Kapteyn TS. (1977b). Satisfaction with fitted hearing aids. II. Scand Audiol 6:171–177.
  • Kim J-O, Mueller CW. (1990). Introduction to Factor Analysis. What It Is and How To Do It. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
  • Kim J-O, Mueller CW. (1991). Factor Analysis. Statistical Methods and Practical Issues. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
  • Kochkin S. (1992). MarkeTrak III identifies key factors in determining consumer satisfaction. Hear J 45(8):39–44.
  • Kochkin S. (1995). MarkeTrak IV Norms: Subjective Measures of Satisfaction and Benefit. Presentation at preconference workshop, American Academy of Audiology meeting, March 1995, Dallas, TX.
  • Levitt Η, Resnick SB. (1978). Speech reception by the hearing impaired: methods of testing and development of materials. Scand Audiol Suppl 6:107–129.
  • MalinoffR, Weinstein B. (1989). Measurement of hearing aid benefit in the elderly. Ear Hear 10:354–356.
  • Newman C, Weinstein B. (1988). The Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly as a measure of hearing aid benefit. Ear Hear 9:81–85.
  • Mueller HG. (1992). Terminology and procedures. In: Mueller HG, Hawkins DB, Northern JL, eds. Probe Microphone Measurements. San Diego, CA: Singular, 41–66.
  • Mueller HG. (1997). Outcome measures: the truth about your hearing aid fittings. Hear J 50:21–32.
  • Schum D. (1992). Responses of elderly hearing aid users on the Hearing Aid Performance Inventory. J Am Acad Audiol 3:308–314.
  • Tillman TW, Carhart R. (1966). An Expanded Test for Speech Discrimination Utilizing CNC Monosyllabic Words. (N.U. Auditory Test No. 6, Technical Report, SAM-TR-66–55). Brooks Air Force Base, TX: USAF School of Aerospace Medicine.
  • Ventry IM, Weinstein BE. (1982). The Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly: a new tool. Ear Hear 3:128–134.
  • Walden B. (1982). Validating measures for hearing aid success. In: Studebaker GA, Bess FH, eds. The Vanderbilt Hearing Aid Report. Upper Darby, PA: Monographs in Contemporary Audiology, 188–192.
  • Walden Β, Demorest Μ, Hepler E. (1984). Self-report approach to assessing benefit derived from amplification. J Speech Hear Res 27:49–56.
  • Weinstein BE. (1997). Outcome measures in the hearing aid fitting/selection process. Trends Amplif 2:117–137.