Considerations in the Development of a Sound Tolerance Interview and Questionnaire Instrument

LaGuinn P. Sherlock; Craig Formby

doi:10.1055/s-0037-1598065

Seminars in Hearing, Table of Contents

Semin Hear 2017; 38(01): 053-070
DOI: 10.1055/s-0037-1598065

Review Article

Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Considerations in the Development of a Sound Tolerance Interview and Questionnaire Instrument

LaGuinn P. Sherlock

¹Army Hearing Division, United States Army Public Health Center, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Aberdeen, Maryland

²National Military Audiology and Speech Pathology Center, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland

,

Craig Formby

³Department of Communicative Disorders, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama

› Author Affiliations

Abstract

Most clinicians approach the objective fitting of hearing aids with three goals in mind: audibility, comfort, and tolerance. When these three amplification goals have been met, the hearing aid user is more likely to adapt to and perceive benefit from hearing aid use. However, problems related to the loudness of sounds and reduced sound tolerance, which may or may not be reported by the aided user, can adversely impact adaptation to amplification and the individual's quality of life. Although there are several standardized questionnaires available to evaluate hearing aid benefit and satisfaction, there is no standardized questionnaire or interview tool for evaluating reduced sound tolerance and the related impact on hearing aid use. We describe a 36-item tool, the Sound Tolerance Questionnaire (STQ), consisting of six sections, including experience with hearing aids, sound sensitivity/intolerance, medical and noise exposure histories, coexisting tinnitus problems, and a final question to differentiate the primary and secondary problems related to sound intolerance, tinnitus, and hearing loss. In its current format as a research tool, the STQ was sensitive in pinpointing vague sound tolerance complaints not reported by the study participants in eligibility screening by Formby et al. A refined version of the STQ, the Sound Tolerance Interview and Questionnaire Instrument (STIQI), structured as a two-part tool, is presented in the appendix for prospective clinical use. The STIQI has potential utility to delineate factors contributing to loudness complaints and/or reduced sound tolerance in individuals considering hearing aid use, as well as those who have been unsuccessful hearing aid users secondary to loudness complaints or sound intolerance. The STIQI, when validated and refined, also may hold promise for predicting hearing aid benefit and/or assessing treatment-related change over time of hearing aid use or interventions designed to remediate problems of loudness and/or sound intolerance among hearing aid candidates or users.

Keywords

Hearing aid benefit - hyperacusis - sound tolerance

Full Text

References

References
1 Dillon H, Prescribing hearing aid amplification. In: Dillon H. , ed. Hearing Aids, New York, NY: Thieme; 2012: 286-353
2 Keidser G, Dillon H, Flax M, Ching T, Brewer S. The NAL-NL2 prescription procedure. Audiology Res 2011; 1 (1) e24
3 Scollie S, Seewald R, Cornelisse L , et al. The Desired Sensation Level multistage input/output algorithm. Trends Amplif 2005; 9 (4) 159-197
4 Valente M, Van Vliet D. The Independent Hearing Aid Fitting Forum (IHAFF) protocol. Trends Amplif 1997; 2 (1) 6-35
5 Cornelisse LE, Seewald RC, Jamieson DG. The input/output formula: a theoretical approach to the fitting of personal amplification devices. J Acoust Soc Am 1995; 97 (3) 1854-1864
6 Cox R. The MSU hearing instrument prescription procedure. Hear Instrum 1988; 39 (1) 6-10
7 Franks JR, Beckmann NJ. Rejection of hearing aids: attitudes of a geriatric sample. Ear Hear 1985; 6 (3) 161-166
8 Lindley GA, Palmer CV, Durrant J, Pratt S. Audiologist- versus patient-driven hearing aid fitting protocols. Semin Hear 2001; 22: 139-159
9 Cunningham DR, Williams KJ, Goldsmith LJ. Effects of providing and withholding postfitting fine-tuning adjustments on outcome measures in novice hearing aid users: a pilot study. Am J Audiol 2001; 10 (1) 13-23
10 Reber MB, Kompis M. Acclimatization in first-time hearing aid users using three different fitting protocols. Auris Nasus Larynx 2005; 32 (4) 345-351
11 Kochkin S. Customer satisfaction with single and multiple microphone digital hearing aids. Hear Rev 2000; 7: 24-29
12 Filion PR, Margolis RH. Comparison of clinical and real-life judgments of loudness discomfort. J Am Acad Audiol 1992; 3 (3) 193-199
13 Munro KJ, Blount J. Adaptive plasticity in brainstem of adult listeners following earplug-induced deprivation. J Acoust Soc Am 2009; 126 (2) 568-571
14 Sherlock LP, Formby C. Estimates of loudness, loudness discomfort, and the auditory dynamic range: normative estimates, comparison of procedures, and test-retest reliability. J Am Acad Audiol 2005; 16 (2) 85-100
15 Bentler RA, Cooley LJ. An examination of several characteristics that affect the prediction of OSPL90 in hearing aids. Ear Hear 2001; 22 (1) 58-64
16 Kamm C, Dirks DD, Mickey MR. Effect of sensorineural hearing loss on loudness discomfort level and most comfortable loudness judgments. J Speech Hear Res 1978; 21 (4) 668-681
17 Keller JN. Loudness discomfort levels: a retrospective study comparing data from Pascoe (1988) and Washington University School of Medicine. Independent Studies and Capstones. Paper 83. Program in Audiology and Communication Sciences, Washington University School of Medicine. 2006. Available at: http://digitalcommons.wustl.edu/ . Accessed January 27, 2016
18 Pascoe DP, Clinical measurements of the auditory dynamic range and their relationship to formulas for hearing aid gain. In: Jensen JH. , ed. Hearing Aid Fitting: Theoretical and Practical Views. 13th Danavox Symposium. Copenhagen, Denmark: Stougaard Jensen; 1988: 129-151
19 Goldstein B, Shulman A. Tinnitus—hyperacusis and the loudness discomfort level test—a preliminary report. Int Tinnitus J 1996; 2: 83-89
20 Elberling C. Loudness scaling revisited. J Am Acad Audiol 1999; 10 (5) 248-260
21 Dillon H, James A, Ginis J. 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 (1) 27-43
22 Cox RM, Alexander GC. Expectations about hearing aids and their relationship to fitting outcome. J Am Acad Audiol 2000; 11 (7) 368-382 , quiz 407
23 Jacobson GP, Newman CW, Fabry DA, Sandridge SA. Development of the three-clinic hearing aid selection profile (HASP). J Am Acad Audiol 2001; 12 (3) 128-141 , quiz 165–166
24 Gatehouse S. Glasgow hearing aid benefit profile: derivation and validation of a client-centered outcome measure for hearing aid services. J Academy of Audiology 1999; 10: 80-103
25 Cox RM, Alexander GC. The abbreviated profile of hearing aid benefit. Ear Hear 1995; 16 (2) 176-186
26 Cox RM, Alexander GC. Measuring satisfaction with amplification in daily life: the SADL. Ear Hear 1999; 20 (4) 306-320
27 Formby C, Hawley ML, Sherlock LP , et al. A sound therapy-based intervention to expand the auditory dynamic range for loudness among persons with sensorineural hearing losses: a randomized placebo-controlled clinical trial. Semin Hear 2015; 36 (2) 77-110
28 Jastreboff PJ. Tinnitus habituation therapy (THT) and tinnitus retraining therapy (TRT). In: Tyler R, , ed. Tinnitus Handbook. San Diego, CA: Singular, Thomson Learning; 2000: 357-376
29 Formby C, Sherlock LP, Gold SL. Adaptive plasticity of loudness induced by chronic attenuation and enhancement of the acoustic background. J Acoust Soc Am 2003; 114 (1) 55-58
30 Formby C, Sherlock LP, Gold SL, Hawley ML. Adaptive recalibration of chronic auditory gain. Semin Hear 2007; 28: 295-302
31 Salvi RJ, Wang J, Lockwood AH, Burkard R, Ding D. Noise and drug induced cochlear damage leads to functional reorganization in the central auditory system. Noise Health 1999; 1 (2) 28-42
32 Vernon JA, Sanders BT. Tinnitus—Questions and Answers. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon; 2001
33 Andersson G, Lindvall N, Hursti T, Carlbring P. Hypersensitivity to sound (hyperacusis): a prevalence study conducted via the Internet and post. Int J Audiol 2002; 41 (8) 545-554
34 Anari M, Axelsson A, Eliasson A, Magnusson L. Hypersensitivity to sound—questionnaire data, audiometry and classification. Scand Audiol 1999; 28 (4) 219-230
35 Schecklmann M, Landgrebe M, Langguth B ; TRI Database Study Group. Phenotypic characteristics of hyperacusis in tinnitus. PLoS One 2014; 9 (1) e86944
36 Nicolas-Puel C, Faulconbridge RL, Guitton M, Puel J-L, Mondain M, Uziel A. Characteristics of tinnitus and etiology of associated hearing loss: a study of 123 patients. Int Tinnitus J 2002; 8 (1) 37-44
37 Jastreboff PJ, Hazell J. Tinnitus Retraining Therapy. Implementing the Neurophysiological Model. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2004
38 Palmer CV, Mueller HG, Moriarty M. Profile of aided loudness: a validation procedure. Hear J 1999; 52 (6) 34-42
39 Tyler RS, Pienkowski M, Roncancio ER , et al. A review of hyperacusis and future directions: part I. Definitions and manifestations. Am J Audiol 2014; 23 (4) 402-419
40 Jastreboff PJ, Jastreboff MM. Treatments for decreased sound tolerance (hyperacusis and misophonia). Semin Hear 2014; 35: 105-120
41 Dauman R, Bouscau-Faure F. Assessment and amelioration of hyperacusis in tinnitus patients. Acta Otolaryngol 2005; 125 (5) 503-509
42 Henry JA, Zaugg TL, Myers PJ, Kendall CJ. Progressive Tinnitus Management Clinical Handbook for Audiologists. 1st ed. San Diego, CA: Plural Publishing; 2010: 117-119
43 Jastreboff MM, Jastreboff PJ. Questionnaires for assessment of the patients and treatment outcome. Sixth International Tinnitus Seminar; September 5–9, 1999, Cambridge, UK; 487–490
44 Khalfa S, Dubal S, Veuillet E, Perez-Diaz F, Jouvent R, Collet L. Psychometric normalization of a hyperacusis questionnaire. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec 2002; 64 (6) 436-442
45 Tyler RS, Bergan C, Preece J, Nagase S. Audiologische messmethoden de hyperakusis. In: Nelting M, , ed. Hyperakusis. Stuttgart, Germany: Georg Thieme Verlag; 2003: 39-46
46 Flores EN, Duggan A, Madathany T , et al. A non-canonical pathway from cochlea to brain signals tissue-damaging noise. Curr Biol 2015; 25 (5) 606-612
47 Liu C, Glowatzki E, Fuchs PA. Unmyelinated type II afferent neurons report cochlear damage. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2015; 112 (47) 14723-14727
48 Tabachnick B. Sound sensitivity. Tinnitus Today 1998; 23: 14-16
49 Meikle MB, Creedon TA, Griest SE. Tinnitus Archive. 2nd ed. 2004. . Available at: http://www.tinnitusArchive.org/ . Accessed January 27, 2016
50 Erdman SA, Self-assessment: From research focus to research tool. In Gagné J-P, Tye-Murray N. , eds. Research in audiological rehabilitation: Current trends and future directions. Journal of the Academy of Rehabilitative Audiology 1994; 27(Mongr. suppl.):67–90