Comparative studies on hearing aid selection and fitting procedures: A review of the literature

European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology

Volumn 265, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 21-29

  Metselaar, Mick ^a   Maat, Bert ^b   Verschuure, Hans ^a   Dreschler, Wouter A ^b   Feenstra, Louw ^a  

^a ERASMUS MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^b ACADEMIC MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Fitting procedures; Hearing impairment; Outcome measures; Study design

Indexed keywords

ACOUSTICS; AUDIOGRAPHY; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT; CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS; COMPARATIVE STUDY; HEARING AID; HEARING LOSS; HUMAN; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; PATIENT ASSESSMENT; POPULATION RESEARCH; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRE; REVIEW; SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; VALIDATION STUDY;

HEARING AIDS; HEARING DISORDERS; HEARING TESTS; HUMANS;

EID: 36348982139     PISSN: 09374477     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00405-007-0494-7     Document Type: Review

References (50)

1. Alcántara JI, Moore BCJ, Marriage JE (2004) Comparison of three procedures for initial fitting of compression hearing aids. II. Experienced users, fitted unilaterally. Int J Audiol 43:3-14
2. American National Standard (ANSI) (1973) American national standard method for coupler calibration of earphones. S3.7-1973. Rev. 1986
3. Barton G, Bankart J, Davis A, Summerfield Q (2004) Comparing utility scores before and after hearing aid provision: results according to the EQ-5D, HUI3 and SF-6D. Appl Health Econ Health Policies 3:103-105
4. Bess FH (2000) The role of generic health-related quality of life measures in establishing audiological rehabilitation outcomes. Ear Hear 21(Suppl 4):74S-79S
5. Carhart R (1946) Tests for selection of hearing aids. Laryngoscope 56:780-794
6. Cornelisse LE, Seewald RC, Jamieson DG (1995) The input/output formula: a theoretical approach to the fitting of personal amplification devices. J Acoust Soc Am 97:1854-1864
7. Cox RM (2003) Assessment of subjective outcome of hearing aid fitting: getting the client's point of view. Int J Audiol 42:S90-S96
8. Cox RM, Alexander GC (1991) Hearing aid benefit in everyday environments. Ear Hear 12:127-139
9. Cox RM, Alexander GC (1995) The abbreviated profile of hearing aid benefit. Ear Hear 16:176-186
10. Dalton DS, Cruickshanks KJ, Klein BE, Klein R, Wiley TL, Nondahl DM (2003) The impact of hearing loss on quality of life in older adults. Gerontologist 43:661-668
11. Dreschler WA, Verschuure H, Ludvigsen C, Westermann S (2001) ICRA noises: artificial noise signals with speech-like spectral and temporal properties for hearing instrument assessment. International collegium for rehabilitative audiology. Audiology 40:148-157
12. Feeny D, Furlong W, Boyle M, Torrance GW (1995) Multi-attribute health status classification systems. Health utilities index. Pharmacoeconomics 7:490-502
13. Gatehouse S (1993) Hearing aid evaluation: limitations of present procedures and future requirements. J Speech Lang Pathol Audiol Monograph Suppl 1:50-57
14. Gatehouse S (1999) A self-report outcome measure for the evaluation of hearing aid fittings and services. Health Bull 57:424-436
15. Gatehouse S, Noble W (2004) The speech, spatial and qualities of hearing scale (ssq). Int J Audiol 43:85-99
16. Gilson BS, Gilson JS, Bergner M, Bobbit RA, Kressel S, Pollard WE, Vessalago M (1975) The sickness impact profile: development of an outcome measure of health care. Am J Public Health 65:1304-1310
17. Hagerman B (1982) Sentences for testing speech intelligibility in noise. Scand Audiol 13:57-63
18. Hagerman B (1984) Clinical measurements of speech reception threshold in noise. Scand Audiol 13:57-63
19. Haggard MP, Foster JR, Iredale FE (1981) Use and benefit of postaural aids in sensory hearing loss. Scand Audiol 10:45-52
20. Hamill TA, Barron TP (1992) Frequency response differences of four gain-equalized hearing aid prescription formulae. Audiology 31:87-94
21. Hawkins D (1992) Prescriptive approaches to selection of gain and frequency response. In: Mueller HG, Hawkins DB, Northern JL (eds) Probe tube microphone measurements: hearing aid selection and assessment. Singular Publishing, San Diego
22. Humes L, Hackett T (1990) Comparison of frequency response and aided speech-recognition performance for hearing aids selected by three different prescriptive methods. J Am Acad Audiol 1:101-108
23. International Electrotechnical Commission (1973) IEC reference coupler for the measurement of hearing aids using earphones coupled to the ear by means of ear inserts, 2nd edn. IEC Publication 126, Geneva
24. International Electrotechnical Commission (1981) Occluded ear simulator for the measurement of earphones coupled to the ear by ear inserts. IEC publication 711, Geneva
25. Joore MA, Brunenberg DE, Chenault MN, Antheunis LJ (2003) Societal effects of hearing aid fitting among the moderately hearing impaired. Int J Audiol 42:152-160
26. Keidser G, Grant F (2001) Comparing loudness normalization (IHAFF) with speech intelligibility maximization (NAL-NL1) when implemented in a two-channel device. Ear Hear 22:501-515
27. Kiessling J, Schubert M, Archut A (1996) Adaptive fitting of hearing instruments by category loudness scaling (ScalAdapt). Scand Audiol 25:153-160
28. Lunner T, Hellgren J, Arlinger S, Elberling C (1997) A digital filterbank hearing aid. Improving a prescriptive fitting with subjective adjustments. Scand Audiol 26:169-176
29. Marriage JE, Moore BCJ, Alcántara JI (2004) Comparison of three procedures for initial fitting of compression hearing aids. III. Inexperienced versus experienced users. Int J Audiol 43:198-210
30. MacLeod A, Summerfield Q (1990) A procedure for measuring auditory and audio-visual speech-reception thresholds for sentences in noise: rationale, evaluation, and recommendations for use. Br J Audiol 24:29-43
31. Moore BC, Alcántara JI, Glasberg BR (1998) Development and evaluation of a procedure for fitting multi-channel compression hearing aids. Br J Audiol 32:177-195
32. Moore BCJ, Alcántara JI, Marriage JE (2001) Comparison of three procedures for initial fitting of compression hearing aids. I. Experienced users, fitted bilaterally. Br J Audiol 35:339-353
33. Moore BCJ, Marriage JE, Alcántara JI, Glasberg BR (2005) Comparison of two adaptive procedures for fitting a multi-channel compression hearing aid. Int J Audiol 44:345-357
34. Nilsson M, Soli SD, Sullivan JA (1994) Development of the hearing in noise test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise. J Acoust Soc Am 95:1085-1099
35. Parsons JO, Clark CR (2002) Comparison of an 'intuitive' NHS hearing aid prescription method with DSL 4.1 targets for amplification. Int J Audiol 41:357-362
36. Peters RW, Moore BC, Glasberg BR, Stone MA (2000) Comparison of the NAL-R and Cambridge formulae for the fitting of linear hearing aids. Br J Audiol 34:21-36
37. Plomp R, Mimpen AM (1979) Improving the reliability of testing the speech reception threshold for sentences. Audiology 18:43-52
38. Ricketts TA (1996) Fitting hearing aids to individual loudness-perception measures. Ear Hear 17:124-132
39. Sammeth CA, Peek BF, Bratt GW, Bess FH, Amberg SM (1993) Ability to achieve gain/frequency response and SSPL-90 under three prescription formulas with in-the-ear hearing aids. J Am Acad Audiol 4:33-41
40. Smeds K (2004) Is normal or less than normal overall loudness preferred by first-time hearing aid users? Ear Hear 25:159-172
41. Stelmachowicz PG, Dalzell S, Peterson D, Kopun J, Lewis DE, Hoover BE (1998) A comparison of threshold-based strategies for nonlinear hearing aids. Ear Hear 19:131-138
42. The EuroQol Group (1990) EuroQol: a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 16:199-208
43. van den Brink RHS, Wit HP, Kempen GIJM, van Heuvelen MJG (1996) Attitude and help-seeking for hearing impairment. Br J Audiol 30:313-324
44. Verschuure J (1994) Selektie van het hoortoestel. In: Kapteyn TS, Clemens A, Glazenburg BE, Joustra J (eds) Slechthorende en hoortoestel. De Leeuw Press, Rijnsburg, The Netherlands
45. Versfeld NJ, Daalder L, Festen JM, Houtgast T (2000) Method for the selection of sentence materials for efficient measurement of the speech reception threshold. J Acoust Soc Am 107:1671-1684
46. Wagener K, Brand T, Kollmeier B (1999) Entwicklung und Evaluation eines Satztests für die deutsche Sprache I-III: Design, Optimierung und Evaluation des Oldenburger Satztests. Z Audiol 38(1-3):4-15. (44-56, 86-95)
47. Ware JE, Sherbourne CD (1992) The MOS 36-item short form health survey (SF-36). Med Care 30:473-483
48. Wesselkamp M, Margolf-Hackl S, Kiessling J (2001) Comparison of two digital hearing instrument fitting strategies. Scand Audiol 30(Suppl 52):73-75
49. World Health Organization (1980) International classification of impairments, disabilities and handicaps. A manual of classification relating to the consequences of disease. World Health Organization, Geneva
50. World Health Organization (2001) International classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF). World Health Organization, Geneva