PDF icon PDF herunterladen
J Am Acad Audiol 2020; 31(10): 746-762
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1719133
Research Article

Comparison of In-Situ and Retrospective Self-Reports on Assessing Hearing Aid Outcomes

Yu-Hsiang Wu
1   Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa
,
Elizabeth Stangl
1   Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa
,
Octav Chipara
2   Department of Computer Science, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa
,
Anna Gudjonsdottir
3   Department of Biostatistics, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa
,
Jacob Oleson
3   Department of Biostatistics, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa
,
Ruth Bentler
1   Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa
› Institutsangaben
Funding The present research was part of a larger clinical trial. The larger clinical trial was supported by a manufacturer that chose not to disclose its identifying information. The present research was supported by National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (R01DC015997 and P50DC000242) and National Science Foundation (SCH 1838830).
› Weitere Informationen
Auch verfügbar aufMedOne
  Lizenzen und Reprints
Preview

Abstract

Background Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) is a methodology involving repeated surveys to collect in-situ self-reports that describe respondents' current or recent experiences. Audiology literature comparing in-situ and retrospective self-reports is scarce.

Purpose To compare the sensitivity of in-situ and retrospective self-reports in detecting the outcome difference between hearing aid technologies, and to determine the association between in-situ and retrospective self-reports.

Research Design An observational study.

Study Sample Thirty-nine older adults with hearing loss.

Data Collection and Analysis The study was part of a larger clinical trial that compared the outcomes of a prototype hearing aid (denoted as HA1) and a commercially available device (HA2). In each trial condition, participants wore hearing aids for 4 weeks. Outcomes were measured using EMA and retrospective questionnaires. To ensure that the outcome data could be directly compared, the Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit Profile was administered as an in-situ self-report (denoted as EMA-GHABP) and as a retrospective questionnaire (retro-GHABP). Linear mixed models were used to determine if the EMA- and retro-GHABP could detect the outcome difference between HA1 and HA2. Correlation analyses were used to examine the association between EMA- and retro-GHABP.

Results For the EMA-GHABP, HA2 had significantly higher (better) scores than HA1 in the GHABP subscales of benefit, residual disability, and satisfaction (p = 0.029–0.0015). In contrast, the difference in the retro-GHABP score between HA1 and HA2 was significant only in the satisfaction subscale (p = 0.0004). The correlations between the EMA- and retro-GHABP were significant in all subscales (p = 0.0004 to <0.0001). The strength of the association ranged from weak to moderate (r = 0.28–0.58). Finally, the exit interview indicated that 29 participants (74.4%) preferred HA2 over HA1.

Conclusion The study suggests that in-situ self-reports collected using EMA could have a higher sensitivity than retrospective questionnaires. Therefore, EMA is worth considering in clinical trials that aim to compare the outcomes of different hearing aid technologies. The weak to moderate association between in-situ and retrospective self-reports suggests that these two types of measures assess different aspects of hearing aid outcomes.

Keywords

Outcome measures - hearing aids - ecological momentary assessment

Note

Portions of this paper were presented at the Academy Research Conference of the American Academy of Audiology, March 27, 2019, Columbus, OH.


Supplementary Material



Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 14. Februar 2020

Angenommen: 10. April 2020

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
15. Dezember 2020

© 2020. American Academy of Audiology. This article is published by Thieme.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA