Download PDF
J Am Acad Audiol 2021; 32(07): 405-419
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1728771
Research Article

Investigating the Role of Auditory Processing Abilities in Long-Term Self-Reported Hearing Aid Outcomes among Adults Age 60+ Years

Alyssa Davidson 
1   Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois
2   Department of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences, The University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona
,
Frank Musiek
2   Department of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences, The University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona
,
Julia M. Fisher
3   Statistics Consulting Laboratory, BIO5 Institute, The University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona
,
Nicole Marrone
2   Department of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences, The University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona
› Author Affiliations Funding Partial funding support came from the Graduate and Professional Student Council Research and Project Grant R0219-9 (A.D.) and the Royal Arch Research Assistance (F.M.).
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background Self-reported hearing aid outcomes among older adults are variable and important to improve. The extent of the role of auditory processing in long-term hearing aid outcomes is not well understood.

Purpose To determine how auditory processing abilities are related to self-reported hearing aid satisfaction and benefit along with either aided audibility alone or exploratory factors suggested by previous literature.

Research Design Descriptive analyses and multiple regression analyses of cross-sectional self-reported outcomes.

Study Sample Adult participants, >60 years (n = 78), fitted with bilateral hearing aids to treat symmetric, mild to moderate sensorineural hearing loss.

Data Collection and Analysis Participants were recruited from a single audiology clinic to complete a series of questionnaires, behavioral assessments, and obtain data from their hearing aids, including real ear measures and data logging of hearing aid use. Multiple linear regressions were used to determine the amount of variance explained by predictive factors in self-reported hearing aid satisfaction and benefit. The primary predictive factors included gap detection threshold, spatial advantage score, dichotic difference score, and aided audibility. Exploratory factors included personality, self-efficacy, self-report of disability, and hearing aid use. All interpretations of statistical significance used p < 0.05. Effect sizes were determined using Cohen's f 2 with a medium effect suggesting clinical relevance.

Results Gap detection threshold was a statistically significant predictor in both primary regression models with a medium effect size for satisfaction and a small effect size for benefit. When additional exploratory factors were included in the regression models with auditory processing abilities, gap detection and self-efficacy were both significant predictors of hearing aid satisfaction with medium effect sizes, explaining 10 and 17% of the variance, respectively. There were no medium effect sizes found for other predictor variables in either the primary or exploratory hearing aid benefit models. Additional factors were statistically significant in the models, explaining a small amount of variance, but did not meet the medium effect size criterion.

Conclusion This study provides initial evidence supporting the incorporation of measures of gap detection ability and hearing aid self-efficacy into clinical practice for the interpretation of postfitting long-term hearing aid satisfaction.

Keywords

hearing aids - auditory processing - satisfaction - benefit - self-efficacy - self-reported outcome measures

Note

The results from this paper were presented in a dissertation colloquium to the department of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences at the University of Arizona with a version of the text in the University of Arizona dissertation repository (Davidson).


Ethical Considerations

This study was approved by the University of Arizona's Institutional Review Board prior to any human recruitment or data collection. Informed consent was discussed in an oral and written format and signed prior to any testing. In addition to informed consent, participants also provided permission for retrospective review of their audiology clinical records and data collection including private health information.


Disclaimer

Any mention of a product, service, or procedure in the Journal of the American Academy of Audiology does not constitute an endorsement of the product, service, or procedure by the American Academy of Audiology.


Supplementary Material



Publication History

Received: 07 May 2020

Accepted: 05 March 2021

Article published online:
30 November 2021

© 2021. American Academy of Audiology. This article is published by Thieme.

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

 

  • References

  • 1 Ferguson MA, Kitterick PT, Chong LY, Edmondson-Jones M, Barker F, Hoare DJ. Hearing aids for mild to moderate hearing loss in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017; 9: CD012023
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Chien W, Lin FR. Prevalence of hearing aid use among older adults in the United States. Arch Intern Med 2012; 172 (03) 292-293
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Anderson M, Rallapalli V, Schoof T, Souza P, Arehart K. The use of self-report measures to examine changes in perception in response to fittings using different signal processing parameters. Int J Audiol 2018; 57 (11) 809-815
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Knudsen LV, Öberg M, Nielsen C, Naylor G, Kramer SE. Factors influencing help seeking, hearing aid uptake, hearing aid use and satisfaction with hearing aids: a review of the literature. Trends Amplif 2010; 14 (03) 127-154
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Cox RM, Alexander GC, Gray GA. Personality, hearing problems, and amplification characteristics: contributions to self-report hearing aid outcomes. Ear Hear 2007; 28 (02) 141-162
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Davidson A, Marrone N, Wong B, Musiek F. Predicting hearing aid satisfaction in adults: A systematic review of speech in noise tests and other behavioral measures. Ear Hear 2021; 42 (06) 1485-1498
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Dornhoffer JR, Meyer TA, Dubno JR, McRackan TR. Assessment of hearing aid benefit using patient-reported outcomes and audiologic measures. Audiol Neurotol 2020; 25 (04) 215-223
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Hosford-Dunn H, Halpern J. Clinical application of the SADL scale in private practice II: predictive validity of fitting variables. Satisfaction with Amplification in Daily Life. J Am Acad Audiol 2001; 12 (01) 15-36
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Musiek FE, Shinn J, Chermak GD, Bamiou DE. Perspectives on the pure-tone audiogram. J Am Acad Audiol 2017; 28 (07) 655-671
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Valente M, Abrams H, Benson D. et al. Guidelines for the audiologic management of adult hearing impairment. Am Acad Audiol Task Force 2006; 1-44
    Google Scholar
  • 11 Atcherson SR, Nagaraj NK, Kennett SE, Levisee M. Overview of central auditory processing deficits in older adults. Semin Hear 2015; 36 (03) 150-161
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Humes LE, Dubno JR, Gordon-Salant S. et al. Central presbycusis: a review and evaluation of the evidence. J Am Acad Audiol 2012; 23 (08) 635-666
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Murphy CFB, Rabelo CM, Silagi ML, Mansur LL, Bamiou DE, Schochat E. Auditory processing performance of the middle-aged and elderly: auditory or cognitive decline?. J Am Acad Audiol 2018; 29 (01) 5-14
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Lopez-Poveda EA, Johannesen PT, Pérez-González P, Blanco JL, Kalluri S, Edwards B. Predictors of hearing-aid outcomes. Trends Hear 2017. Doi: 21:2331216517730526
    Google Scholar
  • 15 Pichora-Fuller MK, Singh G. Effects of age on auditory and cognitive processing: implications for hearing aid fitting and audiologic rehabilitation. Trends Amplif 2006; 10 (01) 29-59
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Gatehouse S. Components and determinants of hearing aid benefit. Ear Hear 1994; 15 (01) 30-49
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Humes LE, Humes LE. Factors affecting long-term hearing aid success. Semin Hear 2004; 25 (01) 63-72
    Article in Thieme ConnectGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Carter AS, Noe CM, Wilson RH. Listeners who prefer monaural to binaural hearing aids. J Am Acad Audiol 2001; 12 (05) 261-272
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Givens GD, Arnold T, Hume WG. Auditory processing skills and hearing aid satisfaction in a sample of older adults. Percept Mot Skills 1998; 86 (3, Pt 1): 795-801
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Saunders GH, Forsline A. The Performance-Perceptual Test (PPT) and its relationship to aided reported handicap and hearing aid satisfaction. Ear Hear 2006; 27 (03) 229-242
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Gerber SE, Fisher LB. Prediction of hearing aid users' satisfaction. J Am Aud Soc 1979; 5 (01) 35-40
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Hayes D, Jerger J, Taff J, Barber B. Relation between aided Synthetic Sentence Identification scores and hearing aid user satisfaction. Ear Hear 1983; 4 (03) 158-161
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Kricos PB, Lesner SA, Sandridge SA, Yanke RB. Perceived benefits of amplification as a function of central auditory status in the elderly. Ear Hear 1987; 8 (06) 337-342
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Kwak MY, Choi WR, Park JW. et al. Assessment of objective audiometry to predict subjective satisfaction in patients with hearing aids. Clin Exp Otorhinolaryngol 2020; 13 (02) 141-147
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Perez E, McCormack A, Edmonds BA. Sensitivity to temporal fine structure and hearing-aid outcomes in older adults. Front Neurosci 2014; 8 (07) 7
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Thorup N, Santurette S, Jørgensen S, Kjærbøl E, Dau T, Friis M. Auditory profiling and hearing-aid satisfaction in hearing-aid candidates. Dan Med J 2016; 63 (10) A5275
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Crowley HJ, Nabelek IV. Estimation of client-assessed hearing aid performance based upon unaided variables. J Speech Hear Res 1996; 39 (01) 19-27
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Walden TC, Walden BE. Predicting success with hearing aids in everyday living. J Am Acad Audiol 2004; 15 (05) 342-352
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Speaks C, Jerger J. Method for measurement of speech identification. J Speech Hear Res 1965; 8 (02) 185-194
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Musiek FE. Assessment of central auditory dysfunction: the dichotic digit test revisited. Ear Hear 1983; 4 (02) 79-83
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Ahlstrom JB, Horwitz AR, Dubno JR. Spatial benefit of bilateral hearing AIDS. Ear Hear 2009; 30 (02) 203-218
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Bentler RA, Niebuhr DP, Getta JP, Anderson CV. Longitudinal study of hearing aid effectiveness. II: subjective measures. J Speech Hear Res 1993; 36 (04) 820-831
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Ng EHN, Rudner M, Lunner T, Rönnberg J. Relationships between self-report and cognitive measures of hearing aid outcome. Speech Lang Hear 2013; 16 (04) 197-207
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Ferguson MA, Woolley A, Munro KJ. The impact of self-efficacy, expectations, and readiness on hearing aid outcomes. Int J Audiol 2016; 55 (03, Suppl 3): S34-S41
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Hickson L, Meyer C, Lovelock K, Lampert M, Khan A. Factors associated with success with hearing aids in older adults. Int J Audiol 2014; 53 (01, Suppl 1): S18-S27
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Uriarte M, Denzin L, Dunstan A, Sellars J, Hickson L. Measuring hearing aid outcomes using the Satisfaction with Amplification in Daily Life (SADL) questionnaire: Australian data. J Am Acad Audiol 2005; 16 (06) 383-402
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Kemker BE, Holmes AE. Analysis of prefitting versus postfitting hearing aid orientation using the Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit Profile (GHABP). J Am Acad Audiol 2004; 15 (04) 311-323
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Munro KJ, Lutman ME. Self-reported outcome in new hearing aid users over a 24-week post-fitting period. Int J Audiol 2004; 43 (10) 555-562
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing; Vienna, Austria: 2020. . Available at: https://www.R-project.org/
    Google Scholar
  • 40 Champely S. pwr: Basic Functions for Power Analysis. R package version 1.3–0. 2020 . Available at: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=pwr
    Google Scholar
  • 41 Cohen JE. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.; 1988
    Google Scholar
  • 42 Nasreddine ZS, Phillips NA, Bédirian V. et al. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MoCA: a brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment. J Am Geriatr Soc 2005; 53 (04) 695-699
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Keidser G, Dillon H, Carter L, O'Brien A. NAL-NL2 empirical adjustments. Trends Amplif 2012; 16 (04) 211-223
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Cox RM, Alexander GC. Measuring Satisfaction with Amplification in Daily Life: the SADL scale. Ear Hear 1999; 20 (04) 306-320
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Cox RM, Alexander GC. Validation of the SADL questionnaire. Ear Hear 2001; 22 (02) 151-160
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Tavakol M, Dennick R. Making sense of Cronbach's alpha. Int J Med Educ 2011; 2: 53-55
    Google Scholar
  • 47 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 (01) 27-43
    Google Scholar
  • 48 Musiek FE, Shinn JB, Jirsa R, Bamiou DE, Baran JA, Zaida E. GIN (Gaps-In-Noise) test performance in subjects with confirmed central auditory nervous system involvement. Ear Hear 2005; 26 (06) 608-618
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Hoover E, Pasquesi L, Souza P. Comparison of clinical and traditional gap detection tests. J Am Acad Audiol 2015; 26 (06) 540-546
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Cameron S, Dillon H. Development of the listening in spatialized noise-sentences test (LISN-S). Ear Hear 2007; 28 (02) 196-211
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Glyde H, Cameron S, Dillon H, Hickson L, Seeto M. The effects of hearing impairment and aging on spatial processing. Ear Hear 2013; 34 (01) 15-28
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Costa PT, McCrae RR. NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources; 1989
    Google Scholar
  • 53 Cox RM, Alexander GC, Gray GA. Who wants a hearing aid? Personality profiles of hearing aid seekers. Ear Hear 2005; 26 (01) 12-26
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Cox RM, Alexander GC, Xu J. Development of the device-oriented subjective outcome (DOSO) scale. J Am Acad Audiol 2014; 25 (08) 727-736
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Goodwin RD, Friedman HS. Health status and the five-factor personality traits in a nationally representative sample. J Health Psychol 2006; 11 (05) 643-654
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 56 Lahey BB. Public health significance of neuroticism. Am Psychol 2009; 64 (04) 241-256
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 57 West RL, Smith SL. Development of a hearing aid self-efficacy questionnaire. Int J Audiol 2007; 46 (12) 759-771
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 58 Gatehouse S, Noble W. The speech, spatial and qualities of hearing scale (SSQ). Int J Audiol 2004; 43 (02) 85-99
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 59 Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap): a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform 2009; 42 (02) 377-381
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 60 Bowling A. Mode of questionnaire administration can have serious effects on data quality. J Public Health (Oxf) 2005; 27 (03) 281-291
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 61 Cohen J. A power primer. Psychol Bull 1992; 112 (01) 155-159
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 62 Selya AS, Rose JS, Dierker LC, Hedeker D, Mermelstein RJ. A practical guide to calculating Cohen's f 2, a measure of local effect size, from PROC MIXED. Front Psychol 2012; 3 (111) 111
    Google Scholar
  • 63 Costa PT, McCrae RR. Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI): Professional Manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources; 1992
    Google Scholar
  • 64 Smith SL, West RL. Hearing aid self-efficacy of new and experienced hearing aid users. Semin Hear 2006; 27 (04) 325-329
    Article in Thieme ConnectGoogle Scholar
  • 65 Nakagawa S, Schielzeth H. A general and simple method for obtaining R2 from generalized linear mixed‐effects models. Methods Ecol Evol 2013; 4 (02) 133-142
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 66 Halekoh U, Højsgaard S. A Kenward-Roger approximation and parametric bootstrap methods for tests in linear mixed models: the R package pbkrtest. J Stat Softw 2014; 59 (09) 1-30
    Google Scholar
  • 67 Kenward MG, Roger JH. Small sample inference for fixed effects from restricted maximum likelihood. Biometrics 1997; 53 (03) 983-997
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 68 Saunders GH, Frederick MT, Silverman SC, Nielsen C, Laplante-Lévesque A. Health behavior theories as predictors of hearing-aid uptake and outcomes. Int J Audiol 2016; 55 (03, Suppl 3): S59-S68
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 69 John AB, Hall III JW, Kreisman BM. Effects of advancing age and hearing loss on gaps-in-noise test performance. Am J Audiol 2012; 21 (02) 242-250
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 70 Jilla AM, Johnson CE, Danhauer JL. et al. Predictors of hearing aid use in the advanced digital era: an investigation of benefit, satisfaction, and self-efficacy. J Am Acad Audiol 2020; 31 (02) 87-95
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 71 Kates JM, Arehart KH, Anderson MC, Kumar Muralimanohar R, Harvey Jr LO. Using objective metrics to measure hearing-aid performance. Ear Hear 2018; 39 (06) 1165-1175
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 72 Humes LE. Factors underlying the speech-recognition performance of elderly hearing-aid wearers. J Acoust Soc Am 2002; 112 (3, Pt 1): 1112-1132
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 73 Feng Y, Yin S, Kiefte M, Wang J. Temporal resolution in regions of normal hearing and speech perception in noise for adults with sloping high-frequency hearing loss. Ear Hear 2010; 31 (01) 115-125
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 74 Kumar UA, Ameenudin S, Sangamanatha AV. Temporal and speech processing skills in normal hearing individuals exposed to occupational noise. Noise Health 2012; 14 (58) 100-105
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 75 Nair PG, Basheer BM. Influence of temporal resolution skills in speech discrimination abilities of older subjects. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital 2017; 37 (01) 58-62
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 76 Harris LR, Brown GT. Mixing interview and questionnaire methods: practical problems in aligning data. Pract Assess, Res Eval 2010; 15 (01) 1-19
    Google Scholar
  • 77 Moum T. Mode of administration and interviewer effects in self-reported symptoms of anxiety and depression. Soc Indic Res 1998; 45: 279-318
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 78 Barker F, Mackenzie E, Elliott L, Jones S, de Lusignan S. Interventions to improve hearing aid use in adult auditory rehabilitation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016; (08) CD010342
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 79 Davidson A, Marrone N. A clinically valuable interaction in the midst of COVID-19 and beyond: a viewpoint on the importance of patient-centered outcomes in rehabilitative audiology. Perspect ASHA Spec Interest Groups 2020; 5 (04) 940-945
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar