Studies of Hearing-Aid Outcome Measures in Older Adults: A Comparison of Technologies and an Examination of Individual Differences

ABSTRACT

This article first compares differences in hearing-aid outcome for groups of older adults fitted with different hearing-aid technologies, ranging from one-channel linear aids with output-limiting compression to four-channel wide-dynamic-range-compression devices with directional microphones. A total of four technologies were examined with 52 to 55 older adults fitted with each technology and assessed with multiple outcome measures. The only significant difference in performance across technologies was superior aided speech recognition in babble for the directional hearing aids when assessed in the sound booth with speech delivered at 0 degrees azimuth and competing babble delivered from 180 degrees azimuth. Importantly, however, all four groups, each with a different technology, demonstrated significant improvements in speech recognition in babble and indicated that they were satisfied with their hearing aids, found them to be beneficial, and used them ~7 to 8 hours per day, on average. Given the lack of differences in technology, the data were then pooled across groups to form one large data set of outcome measures from 333 older adults. From these data, guidelines were developed for the interpretation of individual scores from patients in other clinics with similar demographics as being “below average,” “average,” or “above average.”

KEYWORDS

Aging - hearing aids - outcome measures

REFERENCES

• 1 Schoenborn C A, Marano M. Current estimates from the National Health Interview Survey.  Vital Health Stat 10. 1988;  166 1-233
• 2 Ventry I M, Weinstein B E. The hearing handicap inventory for the elderly: a new tool.  Ear Hear. 1982;  3 128-134
• 3 Lichtenstein M J, Bess F H, Logan S A. Validation of screening tools for identifying hearing-impaired elderly in primary care.  JAMA. 1988;  259 2875-2878
• 4 Bess F H, Lichtenstein M J, Logan S A, Burger M C. Comparing criteria of hearing impairment in the elderly: a functional approach.  J Speech Hear Res. 1989;  32 795-802
• 5 Kochkin S. MarkeTrak III: why 20 million in U.S. don't use hearing aids for their hearing loss. Part I.  Hearing J. 1993a;  46 20-27
• 6 Kochkin S. MarkeTrak III: why 20 million in U.S. don't use hearing aids for their hearing loss. Part II.  Hearing J. 1993b;  46 26-31
• 7 Kochkin S. MarkeTrak III: why 20 million in U.S. don't use hearing aids for their hearing loss. Part III.  Hearing J. 1993c;  46 36-37
• 8 Kochkin S. MarkeTrak V: consumer satisfaction revisited.  Hearing J. 2000;  53 38-55
• 9 Kochkin S. MarkeTrak VII: hearing loss population tops 31 million.  Hear Rev. 2005;  12 16-29
• 10 Ward J A, Lord S R, Williams P, Anstey K. Hearing impairment and hearing aid use in women over 65 years of age. Cross-sectional study of women in a large urban community.  Med J Aust. 1993;  159 382-384
• 11 Smeeth L, Fletcher A E, Ng E S et al.. Reduced hearing ownership, and use of hearing aids in elderly people in the UK—the MRC trial of the assessment and management of older people in the community: a cross-sectional survey.  Lancet. 2002;  359 1466-1470
• 12 Skafte M D. The 1999 hearing instrument market—the dispenser's perspective.  Hear Rev. 2000;  7 8-40
• 13 Ström K E. The HR 2006 dispenser survey.  Hear Rev. 2006;  13(6) 16-39
• 14 Bess F H, Lichtenstein M J, Logan S A, Burger M C, Nelson E C. Hearing impairment as a determinant of function in the elderly.  J Am Geriatr Soc. 1989;  37 123-128
• 15 Bess F H, Logan S A, Lichtenstein M J. Functional impact of hearing loss on the elderly. In: Cherow E Proceedings of the Research Symposium in Communication Sciences and Disorders and Aging. ASHA Reports, 19. Rockville, MD; American Speech-Language-Hearing Association 1990
• 16 Bess F H, Lichtenstein M J, Logan S A. Making hearing impairment functionally relevant: linkages with hearing disability and handicap.  Acta Otolaryngol Suppl. 1990;  476 226-231
• 17 Crandell C. Hearing aids: their effects on functional health status.  Hearing J. 1998;  51 22-30
• 18 Bess F H. The role of generic health-related quality of life measures in establishing audiological rehabilitation outcomes.  Ear Hear. 2000;  21 74S-79S
• 19 Crandell C C, Lewis M S, Valente M, Enrietto J, Kreisman B M, Kreisman N V. Functional health benefits of hearing aid and FM systems. In: Seewald R ACCESS: Achieving Clear Communication Employing Sound Solutions. Stäfa, Switzerland; Phonak AG 2003: 53-59
• 20 Humes L E. Issues in evaluating the effectiveness of hearing aids in the elderly: what to measure and when.  Semin Hear. 2001;  22 303-314
• 21 Humes L E, Garner C B, Wilson D L, Barlow N N. Hearing-aid outcome measures following one month of hearing aid use by the elderly.  J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2001;  44 469-486
• 22 Humes L E, Wilson D L, Barlow N N, Garner C B. Measures of hearing-aid benefit following 1 or 2 years of hearing-aid use by older adults.  J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2002a;  45 772-782
• 23 Humes L E, Wilson D L, Barlow N N, Garner C B, Amos N E. Longitudinal changes in hearing-aid satisfaction and usage in the elderly over a period of one or two years after hearing-aid delivery.  Ear Hear. 2002b;  23 428-437
• 24 Humes L E. Factors underlying the speech-recognition performance of elderly hearing-aid wearers.  J Acoust Soc Am. 2002;  112 1112-1132
• 25 Larson V D, Williams D W, Henderson W G et al.. Efficacy of 3 commonly used hearing aid circuits: a crossover trial.  JAMA. 2000;  284 1806-1813
• 26 Haskell G B, Noffsinger D, Larson V D, Williams D W, Dobie R A, Rogers J L. Subjective measures of hearing aid benefit in the NIDCD/VA clinical trial.  Ear Hear. 2002;  23 301-307
• 27 Shanks J E, Wilson R H, Larson V D, Williams D. Speech recognition performance of patients with sensorineural hearing loss under unaided and aided conditions using linear and compression hearing aids.  Ear Hear. 2002;  23 280-290
• 28 Humes L E. Modeling and predicting hearing-aid outcome.  Trends Amplif. 2003;  7 41-75
• 29 Humes L E. Hearing-aid outcome measures in older adults. In: Palmer CA, Seewald RC Hearing Care for Adults 2006. Stäfa, Switzerland; Phonak AG 2007: 265-276
• 30 Humes L E, Wilson D L. An examination of the changes in hearing-aid performance and benefit in the elderly over a 3-year period of hearing-aid use.  J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2003;  46 137-145
• 31 Turner C W, Humes L E, Bentler R, Cox R M. A review of past research on changes in hearing-aid benefit over time.  Ear Hear. 1996;  17 14S-28S
• 32 Saunders G H, Cienkowski K M. Acclimatization to hearing aids.  Ear Hear. 1997;  18 129-139
• 33 Surr R K, Cord M T, Walden B E. Long-term versus short-term hearing aid benefit.  J Am Acad Audiol. 1998;  9 165-171
• 34 Humes L E, Humes L E, Wilson D L. A comparison of single-channel linear amplification and two-channel wide-dynamic-range-compression amplification by means of an independent-group design.  Am J Audiol. 2004;  13 39-53
• 35 Humes L E, Barlow N N, Garner C B, Wilson D L. Prescribed clinician-fit versus as-worn coupler gain in a group of elderly hearing-aid wearers.  J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2000;  43 879-892
• 36 Byrne D, Dillon H. The National Acoustic Laboratories' (NAL) new procedure for selecting the gain and frequency response of a hearing aid.  Ear Hear. 1986;  7 257-265
• 37 Killion M C, Fikret-Pasa S. The 3 types of sensorineural hearing loss: loudness and intelligibility considerations.  Hearing J. 1993;  46 1-4
• 38 Dillon H, Byrne D, Brewer S, Katsch R, Ching T, Keidser G. NAL NonlinearVersion 1.01 User Manual. Chatswood, Australia; National Acoustics Laboratories 1998
• 39 Cornelisse L E, Seewald R, Jamieson D. The input/output formula: a theoretical approach to the fitting of personal amplification devices.  J Acoust Soc Am. 1995;  97 1854-1864
• 40 Van Buuren R A, Festen J M, Plomp R. Evaluation of a wide range of amplitude-frequency responses for the hearing impaired.  J Speech Hear Res. 1995;  38 211-221
• 41 Cox R M, Alexander G C, Gilmore C. Development of the Connected Speech Test (CST).  Ear Hear. 1987;  8(5, Suppl) 119S-126S
• 42 Walden B E, Demorest M E, Hepler E L. Self-report approach to assessing benefit derived from amplification.  J Speech Hear Res. 1984;  27 49-56
• 43 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
• 44 Kochkin S. MarkeTrak IV: 10-year trends in the hearing aid market—has anything changed?.  Hearing J. 1996;  49 1-6
• 45 Walden B E, Surr R, Cord M, Dyrlund O. Predicting hearing aid microphone preference in everyday listening.  J Am Acad Audiol. 2004;  15 365-396
• 46 Cord M T, Surr R K, Walden B E, Dyrlund O. Relationship between laboratory measures of directional advantage and everyday success with directional microphone hearing aids.  J Am Acad Audiol. 2004;  15 353-364
• 47 Shanks J E, Wilson R H, Stelmachowicz P, Bratt G W, Williams D W. Speech-recognition performance after long-term hearing aid use.  J Am Acad Audiol. 2007;  18 292-303
• 48 Takahashi G, Martinez C D, Beamer S et al.. Subjective measures of hearing aid benefit and satisfaction in the NIDCD/VA follow-up study.  J Am Acad Audiol. 2007;  18 323-349
• 49 Thornton A RD, Raffin M JM. Speech-discrimination scores modeled as a binomial variable.  J Speech Hear Res. 1978;  21 507-518