Measuring hearing aid outcomes - Not as easy as it seems

Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development

Volumn 42, Issue 4 SUPPL. 2, 2005, Pages 157-168

  Saunders, Gabrielle H ^a   Chisolm, Teresa H ^b   Abrams, Harvey B ^c  

^a NATIONAL CENTER FOR REHABILITATIVE AUDITORY RESEARCH   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA   (United States)

^c Bay Pines VA Medical Center   (United States)

Author keywords

Audiology; Hearing aid; Hearing loss; International classification of functioning disability and health; Measurement; Outcome assessment (healthcare); Outcomes; Quality of life; Treatment outcome; World Health Organization

Indexed keywords

DISEASES; PATIENT REHABILITATION; SOCIETIES AND INSTITUTIONS;

AUDIOLOGY; QUALITY OF LIFE; TREATMENT OUTCOME; WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION;

HEARING AIDS;

AUDIOLOGY; EXPECTATION; HEARING AID; HUMAN; INFORMATION; INTERNATIONAL CLASSIFICATION OF FUNCTIONING, DISABILITY AND HEALTH; PATIENT; PATIENT ATTITUDE; PERSONALITY; PHYSICIAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; VALIDITY; VISION;

AUDIOLOGY; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DISABILITY EVALUATION; HEARING AIDS; HEARING LOSS; HUMANS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRES; WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION;

EID: 33244488707     PISSN: 07487711     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1682/JRRD.2005.01.0001     Document Type: Review

References (68)

1. Abrams HB, Hnath-Chisolm T. Outcome measures: The audiologic difference. In: Hosford-Dunn H, Roeser R, Valente M, editors. Audiology practice management. New York: Thieme Medical Publishers; 2000. p. 69-94.
2. Johnson CE, Danhauer JL. Handbook of outcomes measurement in audiology. Clifton Park (NY): Thomson Delmar Learning; 2002.
3. Cox RM, Hyde M, Gatehouse S, Noble W, Dillon H, Bentler R, Stephens SDG, Arlinger A, Beck L, Wilkerson D, Kramer S, Kricos P, Gagne J-P, Bess F, Halleberg L. Optimal outcome measures, research priorities, and international cooperation. Ear Hear. 2000;21:106S-115.
4. Beck LB. The role of outcomes data in health-care resource allocation. Ear Hear. 2000;21:89S-96.
5. Humes LE. Dimensions of hearing aid outcome. J Am Acad Audiol. 1999;10:26-39.
6. Frattali CM. Outcomes measurement: Definitions, dimensions and perspectives. In: Frattali C, editor. Measuring outcomes in speech-language pathology. New York: Thieme Medical Publishers; 1998. p. 1-27.
7. Bentler RA, Kramer SE. Guidelines for choosing a self-report outcome measure. Ear Hear. 2000;21:37S-49.
8. Hirsh IJ, Davis H, Silverman SR, Reynolds EG, Eldert E, Benson RW. Development of materials for speech audiometry. J Speech Hear Disord. 1952;17:321-37.
9. Nilsson M, Soli SD, Sullivan JA. Development of the Hearing In Noise Test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise. J Acoust Soc Am. 1994;95:1085-93.
10. Cox RM, Alexander GC, Gilmore C. Development of the Connected Sentence Test (CST). Ear Hear. 1987;8:119S-126.
11. Cox RM, Alexander GC. The Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit. Ear Hear. 1995;16:176-86.
12. Newman C, Weinstein B, Jacobson G, Hug G. The Hearing Handicap Inventory for Adults: Psychometric adequacy and audiometric correlates. Ear Hear. 1990;11:430-33.
13. Ventry IM, Weinstein BE. The Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly: A new tool. Ear Hear. 1982;3:40-46.
14. Cox RM, Alexander GC. Measuring Satisfaction with Amplification in Daily Life: the SADL scale. Ear Hear. 1999;20:306-20.
15. Dillon H, James A, Ginis J. The 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. 1997;8:27-43.
16. Gatehouse S. Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit Profile: Derivation and validation of a client-centered outcome measure for hearing-aid services. J Am Acad Audiol. 1999;10:80-103.
17. Bess FH. The role of generic health-related quality of life measures in establishing audiological rehabilitation outcomes. Ear Hear. 2000;21:74S-79.
18. Gilson BS, Gilson JS, Bergner M, Bobbit RA, Kressel S, Pollard WE, Vesselago M. The sickness impact profile. Development of an outcome measure of health care. Am J Public Health. 1975;65:1304-10.
19. Ware JE Jr, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selections. Med Care. 1992;30:73-83.
20. The National Council on the Aging. The consequences of untreated hearing loss. ORL Head Neck Nurs. 1999;18:12-16.
21. Epping-Jordan JT, Bedirhan Üstün TB. The WHODAS II: leveling the playing field for all disorders, 2001 [cited December 1, 2004]. Available from: URL: http://www.who.int/icidh/who das/generalinfo.html
22. Rehm J, Ustun TB, Saxena S. On the development and psychometric testing of the WHO screening instrument to assess disablement in the general population. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. 1990;8:110-22.
23. Abrams HB, Doyle PJ. Functioning, disability and quality of life in the hearing impaired. Department of Veterans Affairs Rehabilitation Research and Development Study 2439-R; 2001.
24. Day H, Jutai J. Measuring the psychosocial impact of assistive devices: the PIADS. Can J Rehabil. 1996;9:159-68.
25. Saunders GH, Jutai JW. Hearing specific and generic measures of the psychosocial impact of hearing aids. J Am Acad Audiol. 2004;15:238-48.
26. Cox RM, Alexander GC. Expectations about hearing aids and their relationship to fitting outcome. J Am Acad Audiol. 2000;11:368-82.
27. Kochkin S, Rogin CM. Quantifying the obvious: the impact of hearing instruments on the quality of life. Hear Rev. 2000;7:6-34.
28. Mulrow CD, Aguilar C, Endicott JE, Tuley MR, Velez R, Charlip WS, Rhodes MC, Hill JA, DeNino LA. Quality-of-life changes and hearing impairment: A randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. 1990;113:188-94.
29. Bridges JA, Bentler RA. Relating hearing aid use to wellbeing amongst older adults. Hear J. 1998;51:39-44.
30. World Health Organization. Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS II) 35-item interviewer administered version, 2001 [cited December 1, 2004]. Available from: URL: http://www.who.int/icidh/shodat/index.htm
31. Cox RM, Alexander GC. The International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids (IOI-HA): psychometric properties of the English version. Int J Audiol. 2002;41:30-35.
32. Abrams HB, Chisolm TH, McArdle R. A cost-utility analysis of adult group audiologic rehabilitation: Are the benefits worth the cost? J Rehabil Res Dev. 2002;39:549-57.
33. Yueh B, Souza PE, McDowell JA, Collins MP, Loovis CF, Hedrick SC, Ramsey SD, Deyo RA. Randomized trial of amplification strategies. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2001;127:1197-1204.
34. Kenworthy MK. An examination of the relationship between the U-Titer II and hearing aid benefit, 2002 [cited December 1, 2004]. Available from: URL: http://etd.fcla.edu/SF/ SFE00 00033, University of South Florida unpublished doctor of audiology project, Tampa (FL).
35. Roberts R, Lister J. Utility measures for audiology application (UMAA) [computer software]. Bay Pines (FL): VA Medical Center Bay Pines; 2005.
36. Cox RM. Choosing a self-report measure for hearing aid fitting outcomes. Semin Hear. 2005; 26(3):149-56.
37. Horwitz AR, Turner CW, Fabry DA. Effects of different frequency response strategies upon recognition and preference for audible speech stimuli. J Speech Hear Res. 1991;34:1185-96.
38. Preminger JE, Neuman AC, Bakke MH. An examination of the practicality of the simplex procedure. Ear Hear. 2000;21:177-93.
39. Ricketts T, Bentler RA. Comparison of two digital programmable hearing aids. J Am Acad Audiol. 1992;3:101-12.
40. Valente MA, Fabry DA, Potts LG, Sandlin RE. Comparing performance of the Widex Senso digital hearing aid with analog hearing aids. J Am Acad Audiol. 1998;9:342-60.
41. Cox RM, Alexander GC. Maturation of hearing aid benefit. Ear Hear. 1992;13:131-41.
42. Haggard MP, Foster JR, Iredale FE. Use and benefit of postaural aids in sensory hearing loss. Scand Audiol. 1981;10:45-52.
43. Bentler RA, Niebuhr DP, Johnson TA, Flamme GA. Impact of digital labeling on outcome measures. Ear Hear. 2000;24:215-24.
44. McClymont LG, Browning GC, Gatehouse S. Reliability of patient choice between hearing aid systems. Br J Audiol. 1991;25:35-39.
45. Saunders GH, Cienkowski KM. A test to measure subjective and objective speech intelligibility. J Am Acad Audiol. 2002;13:38-49.
46. Saunders GH, Forsline A, Fausti SA. The Performance-Perceptual Test (PPT) and its relationship to unaided reported handicap. Ear Hear. 2004;25:117-26.
47. Forsline A, Saunders GH. The Performance-Perceptual Test as an indicator of hearing aid satisfaction. Poster presented at the International Hearing Aid Research Conference (IHCON); 2004 August 25-29; Lake Tahoe, CA.
48. Saunders GH, Cienkowski KM. Refinement and psychometric evaluation of the Attitudes Towards Loss of Hearing Questionnaire. Ear Hear. 1996;17:505-19.
49. Gatehouse S. Components and determinants of hearing aid benefit. Ear Hear. 1994;15:30-49.
50. Cox RM, Alexander GC, Gray G. Personality and subjective assessment of hearing aids. J Am Acad Audiol 1999;10:1-13.
51. Garstecki DC, Erler SF. Hearing loss, control and demographic factors influencing hearing aid use among older adults. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 1998;41:527-37.
52. Kricos P, Lessner SA, Sandridge SA. Expectations of older adults regarding the use of hearing aids. J Am Acad Audiol. 1991;2:129-33.
53. Jerram JC, Purdy S. Technology, expectations, and adjustment to hearing loss: predictors of hearing aid outcome. J Am Acad Audiol. 2001;12:64-79.
54. Hickson L, Hamilton L, Orange SP. Factors associated with hearing aid use. Aust J Audiol. 1986;8:37-41.
55. Wilson C, Stephens D. Reasons for referral and attitudes toward hearing aids: do they affect outcome? Clin Otolaryngol. 2002;28:81-84.
56. Brooks DN, Hallam RS. Attitudes to hearing difficulty and hearing aids and the outcome of audiological rehabilitation. Br J Audiol. 1998;32:217-26.
57. van den Brink RHS, Wit HP, Kempden GIJM, van Heuvelen MJG. Attitude and help-seeking for hearing impairment. Br J Audiol. 1996;30:313-24.
58. Stock A, Fichtl E, Heller O. Comparing determinants of hearing instrument satisfaction in Germany and in the United States. High Performance Hearing Solutions. 1997;2:40-46.
59. Abrams HB, Hnath-Chisolm T, Guerreiro SM, Ritterman SI. The effects of intervention strategy on self-perception of hearing handicap. Ear Hear. 1992;13:371-77.
60. Brooks DN. Counseling and its effect on hearing aid use. Scand Audiol. 1979;8:101-7.
61. Brooks DN. The effect of attitude on benefit obtained from hearing aids. Br J Audiol. 1989;23:3-11.
62. Kapteyn TS, Wijkel D, Hackenitz E. The effects of involvement of the general practitioner and guidance of the hearing impaired on hearing-aid use. Br J Audiol. 1997;31:399-407.
63. Surr RK, Schuchman GI, Montgomery AA. Factors influencing the use of hearing aids. Arch Otolaryngol. 1978;104:732-36.
64. Kumar M, Hickey S, Shaw S. Manual dexterity and successful hearing aid use. J Laryngol Otol. 2000;114:593-97.
65. Humes LE, Wilson DL, Humes AC. Examination of differences between successful and unsuccessful elderly hearing aid candidates matched for age, hearing loss and gender. Int J Audiol. 2003;42(7):432-41.
66. Meister H, Lausberg I, Kiessling J, von Wedel H, Walger M. Identifying the needs of elderly, hearing-impaired persons: the importance and utility if hearing aid attributes. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2002;259:531-34.
67. Baumfield A, Dillon H. Factors affecting the use and perceived benefit of ITE and BTE hearing aids. Br J Audiol. 2001;35(4):247-58.
68. Noffsinger D, Wilson RH, Musiek FE. Department of Veterans Affairs compact disc (VA-CD) recording for auditory perceptual assessment: background and introduction. J Am Acad Audiol. 1994;5:231-35.