Self-Report Outcome Measures for Adult Hearing Aid Services: Some Uses, Users, and Options

Trends in Amplification

Volumn 5, Issue 3, 2001, Pages 91-110

  Gatehouse, Stuart ^a  

^a GLASGOW ROYAL INFIRMARY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ADULT; AUDIOLOGY; CLINICAL RESEARCH; DATA ANALYSIS; DIAGNOSTIC TEST; FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT; HEARING; HEARING AID; HEARING IMPAIRMENT; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MEASUREMENT; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PHYSICAL DISABILITY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PSYCHOMETRY; RATING SCALE; REVIEW; SCORING SYSTEM; SELF EVALUATION; SELF REPORT; SOCIAL DISABILITY;

EID: 0035176332     PISSN: 10847138     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/108471380100500302     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. ANSI. Proposed American National Standard Methods for the calculation of the speech intelligibility index, New York: American National Standards Institute, S.3.5, Draft V.3.1, 1993.
2. Beck LB. The role of outcome data in health-care re-source allocation. Ear Hear 21:89S-96S, 2000.
3. Bentler RA, Kramer SE. Guidelines for choosing a self-report outcome measure. Ear Hear 21:37S-49S, 2000.
4. Berger KW. The use of an articulation index to compare three hearing aid prescription methods. Audecibel Summer: 16-19, 1990.
5. Bess FH. The role of generic health-related quality of life measures in establishing audiological rehabilitation outcomes. Ear Hear 21:74S-79S, 2000.
6. Brooks DN, Johnston DW. Pre-issue assessment and counselling as a component of hearing aid provision. Br J Audiol 15:13-19, 1981.
7. Buhrlen-Armstrong B, de Jager U, Schochat T, et al. Patient satisfaction in rehabilitation of muscu-loskeletal diseases-effect of patient characteristics, treatment, evaluation schedule and correlation with treatment outcome. (German). Rehabilitation 37: suppl 1, S38-S46, 1998.
8. Byrne D. Effects of frequency response characteristics on speech discrimination and perceived intelligibility and pleasantness of speech for hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am 80(2):494-504, 1986.
9. Byrne D. Hearing aid clinical trials: specific benefits need specific measures. Am J Audio 7:17-19, 1998.
10. CARF. CARF Quality Forum White Paper, Tucson, AZ: CARF, 1997.
11. CARF. Performance Indicators for Rehabilitation Programs, Version 1.1: Working Draft for Comment, Tucson, AZ: CARF, 1998.
12. CARF. 2000 Medical Rehabilitation Standards Manual, Tucson, AZ: CARF, 2000.
13. Cox RM, Gilmore C. Development of the profile of hearing aid performance. J Speech Hear Res 33:343-357, 1990.
14. Cox RM, Gilmore CG, Alexander GC. Comparison of two questionnaires for patient-assessed hearing aid benefit. J Am Acad Audiol 2:134-145, 1991.
15. Cox RM, Rivera IM. Predictability and reliability of hearing aid benefit measured using the PHAB. J Am Acad Audiol 3:242-254, 1992.
16. Cox RM, Alexander GC. The abbreviated profile of hearing aid benefit. Ear Hear 16:176-183, 1995.
17. Cox RM, Alexander GC. Measuring satisfaction with am-plification in daily life: The SADL scale. Ear Hear 20:306-320, 1999.
18. Cox R, Hyde M, Gatehouse S, Noble W, Dillon H, Bentler R, et al. Optimal outcome measures, research priorities, and international cooperation. Ear Hear 21:106S-115S, 2000.
19. Chung KC, Hamill JB, Kim HM, Walters MR, Wilkins EG. Predictors of patient satisfaction in an outpatient plastic surgery clinic. Ann Plast Surg 42(1):56-60, 1999.
20. Dillon H, James A, Ginis JA. The client-orientated 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, 1997.
21. Dillon H, Birtles G, Lovegrove R. Measuring the out-comes of a national rehabilitation program: Normative data for the client orientated scale of improvement (COSI) and the hearing aid users questionnaire (HAUQ). J Am Acad Audiol 10:67-79, 1999.
22. Dillon H, Mei S. Incentives and obstacles to the routine use of outcome measures by clinicians. Ear Hear 21:2S-6S, 2000.
23. Dittmar SS, Gresham GE. Functional Assessment and Outcome Measures for the Rehabilitation Health Professional; Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen Publishers Inc, 1997.
24. EuroQOL Group. EuroQOL-a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 16:199-208, 1990.
25. Fuhrer M. Overview of outcome analysis in rehabilitation. In: Fuhrer MJ, ed. Rehabilitation Outcomes: Analysis and Measurement, Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing, 1987, pp 1-18.
26. Gagne JP. What is treatment evaluation research? What is its relationship to the goals of audiological rehabilitation? Who are the stakeholders of this type of research? Ear Hear 21:60S-73S, 2000.
27. Gatehouse S. Outcome measures for the evaluation of adult hearing aid fittings and services. Scientific and Technical Report to the Department of Health, London, England, 1997.
28. Gatehouse S. The Glasgow hearing aid benefit profile: A patient-centred outcome measure for the evaluation of hearing aid fittings and services. BAAT News, 1998.
29. Gatehouse S. Administration Manual for the Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit Profile. MRC Institute of Hearing Research, 1999.
30. Gatehouse S. The Glasgow hearing aid benefit profile: Derivation and validation of a client-centred outcome measure for hearing aid services. J Am Acad Audiol 10:80-103, 1999.
31. Gatehouse S. A self-report outcome measure for the evaluation of hearing aid fittings and services. Health Bulletin 57(6):424-436, 1999.
32. Gatehouse S. The Glasgow hearing aid benefit profile. ENT News 8, No 3, 1999.
33. Gatehouse S. The Glasgow hearing aid benefit profile: A patient-centred outcome measure for the evaluation of hearing aid fittings and services. Br Soc Hear Aid Audiol 15-16, 1999.
34. Gatehouse S. The Glasgow hearing aid benefit profile: What it measures and how to use it. Hearing Jl 53 No 3, 2000.
35. Gatehouse S. The impact of measurement goals on the design specification for outcome measures. Ear Hear 21:100S-105S, 2000.
36. Gilson BS, Gilson J, Bergner M, et al. The sickness impact profile: Development of an outcome measure of health care. Am J Public Health 65:1304-1310, 1975.
37. Hyde ML. Reasonable psychometric standards for self-re-port outcome measures in audiological rehabilitation. Ear Hear 21:24S-36S, 2000.
38. Keidser G, Dillon H, Byrne D. Candidates for multiple fre-quency response characteristics. Ear Hear 16(6):562-574, 1995.
39. Kravitz R. Patient satisfaction with health care: Critical outcome or trivial pursuit? (Editorial). J Gen Intern Med 13(4):280-282, 1998.
40. Kricos P. The influence of nonaudiological variables on audiological rehabilitation outcomes. Ear Hear 21:7S-14S, 2000.
41. Lambert W, Salzer MS, Bickman L. Clinical outcome, consumer satisfaction, and ad hoc ratings of improvement in children's mental health. J Cons Clin Psychol 66(2):270-279, 1998.
42. Meredith P. Patient satisfaction with communication in general surgery: Problems of measurement and improvement. Soc Sci Med 37(5):591-602, 1993.
43. Meredith P. But was the operation worth it? The limitations of quality of life and patient satisfaction research in health-care outcome assessments. J Qual Clin Prac 16(2):75-85, 1996.
44. McHorney CA, Wre JE, Rogers W, et al. The validity and relative precision of MOS short and long term health status scores and Dartmouth COOP charts: Results from medical outcomes study. Med Care 30 (suppl 5):MS253-MS265, 1992.
45. Newman CW, Weinstein BE, Jacobson GP, Hug GA. The hearing handicap inventory for adults: Psychometric adequacy and audiometric correlates. Ear Hear 11:430-433, 1990.
46. Newman CW, Weinstein BE, Jacobson GP, Hug GA. Test-retest reliability of the hearing handicap inventory for adults. Ear Hear 12:355-357, 1991.
47. Noble WG. Self-Assessment of Hearing and Related Functions, London: Whurr Publishers, 1998.
48. Norman M, George CR, McCarthy D. The effect of pre-fit-ting counselling on the outcome of hearing aid fittings. Scand Audiol 23:258-263, 1998.
49. Ries RK, Jaffe C, Comtois KA, Kitchell M. Treatment satisfaction compared with outcome in severe dual disorders. Comm Mental Health J 35(3):213-221, 1999.
50. Rey JM, Plapp JM, Simpson PL. Parental satisfaction and outcome: A 4-year study in a child and adolescent mental’ health service. Aust NZ J Psych 33(1):22-28, 1999.
51. Torrance GW. Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal-a review. J Health Econ 5:1-30, 1986.
52. Torrance GW, Feeny D. Utilities and quality-adjusted life years. Int J Tech Ass Health Care 5:559-575, 1989.
53. Ventry I, Weinstein B. The hearing handicap inventory for the elderly: A new tool. Ear Hear 3:128-134, 1982.
54. Weinstein BE, Spitzer JB, Ventry IM. Test-retest reliability of the hearing handicap inventory for the elderly. Ear Hear 7:295-299, 1986.
55. Wheelock I, Peterson C, Buchtel HA. Presurgery expectations, postsurgery satisfaction, and psychosocial adjustment after epilepsy surgery. Epilepsia 39(5):487-494, 1998.
56. Wilkerson D. Current issues in rehabilitation outcome measurement: Implications for audiology rehabilitation. Ear Hear 21:80S-88S, 2000.
57. World Health Organization. International Classification of Impairments, Disabilities and Handicaps, Geneva: World Health Organization, 1980.
58. World Health Organization. ICIDH-2: International Classification of Impairments, Disabilities and Handicaps. Beta-1 Trial version, Geneva: World Health Organization, 1997.