PDF herunterladen
J Am Acad Audiol 2000; 11(07): 368-382
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1748124
Original Article

Expectations About Hearing Aids and Their Relationship to Fitting Outcome

Robyn M. Cox
School of Audiology and Speech-Language Pathology, University of Memphis, and
Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Memphis, Tennessee
,
Genevieve C. Alexander
School of Audiology and Speech-Language Pathology, University of Memphis, and
Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Memphis, Tennessee
› Institutsangaben
› Weitere Informationen
Auch verfügbar auf
  als PDF herunterladen  Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Clinicians are often concerned that unrealistic prefitting expectations can have a negative impact on fitting success for new hearing aid wearers. To investigate this concern and to explore the potential value of measuring expectations, we developed the Expected Consequences of Hearing aid Ownership (ECHO) questionnaire as a companion to the Satisfaction with Amplification in Daily Life questionnaire. Four experiments were conducted to (1) determine realistic expectations for hearing aids, (2) evaluate expectations of new users, (3) measure reliability of prefitting expectations, and (4) assess relationships between prefitting expectations and postfitting satisfaction. Novice hearing aid users were found to have stable prefitting expectations about hearing aids, and these expectations were unrealistically high for the typical individual. There were many different expectation patterns across subjects. Of the four subscales of the ECHO, only one was predictive of the corresponding satisfaction data. Potential clinical applications are described.

Abbreviations: ECHO = Expected Consequences of Hearing aid Ownership, SADL = Satisfaction with Amplification in Daily Life, 3FAHL = better-ear three-frequency (500–2000 Hz) pure-tone average hearing loss

Key Words

Hearing aids - outcome measure - satisfaction


Publikationsverlauf

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
12. April 2022

© 2000. 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

  • Bentler RA, Niebuhr DP, Getta JP, Anderson CV. (1993). Longitudinal study of hearing aid effectiveness. II: Subjective measures. J Speech Hear Res 36:820–831.
  • Brooks DN. (1989). The effect of attitude on benefit obtained from hearing aids. Br J Audiol 23:3–11.
  • Brooks DN, Hallam RS. (1998). Attitudes to hearing difficulty and hearing aids and the outcome of audiological rehabilitation. Br J Audiol 32:217–226.
  • Cox RM, Alexander GC. (1995). The Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit. Ear Hear 16:176–186.
  • Cox RM, Alexander GC. (1999). Measuring satisfaction with amplification in daily life: The SADL Scale. Ear Hear 20:306–320.
  • Cox RM, Alexander GC, Gray GA. (1999a). Personality and the subjective assessment of hearing aids. J Am Acad Audiol 10:1–13.
  • Cox RM, Alexander GC, Gray GA. (1999b). Audiometrie Correlates of the APHAB. Hearing Aid Research Laboratory, unpublished manuscript.
  • Franks JR, Beekman NJ. (1985). Rejection of hearing aids: attitudes of a geriatric sample. Ear Hear 6:161–166.
  • Garstecki DC, Erler SF. (1996). Older adult performance on the Communication Profile for the Hearing Impaired. J Speech Hear Res 39:28–42.
  • Garstecki DC, Erler SF. (1998). Hearing loss, control, and demographic factors influencing hearing aid use among older adults. J Speech Lang Hear Res 41:527–537.
  • Gatehouse S. (1994). Components and determinants of hearing aid benefit. Ear Hear 15:30–49.
  • Gatehouse S. (1999). Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit Profile: derivation and validation of a client-centered outcome measure for hearing aid services. J Am Acad Audiol 10:80–103.
  • Hallam RS, Brooks DN. (1996). Development of the Hearing Attitudes in Rehabilitation Questionnaire (HARQ). Br J Audiol 30:199–213.
  • Hawes NA, Durand RM, Clark SR. (1985). Understanding desired benefits of a hearing aid: a consumer behavior perspective. J Acad Rehabil Audiol 18:112–122.
  • Humes LE, Hailing D, Coughlin M. (1996). Reliability and stability of various hearing-aid outcome measures in a group of elderly hearing-aid wearers. J Speech Hear Res 39:923–935.
  • Kirkwood DH. (1999). In '98, hearing aid market hit new highs, but growth slowed. Hear J 52(1):21–31.
  • Kochkin S. (1992). Marketrak III identifies key factors in determining consumer satisfaction. Hear J 45(8):39–44.
  • Kochkin S. (1993). Marketrak III: why 20 million in US don't use hearing aids for their hearing loss. Hear J 46( 1, 2, 4):20–7, 26–31, 36–7.
  • Kochkin S. (1998). MarkeTrak IV: correlates of hearing aid purchase intent. Hear J 51(1):30–41.
  • Kricos PB, Lesner SA, Sandridge SA. (1991). Expectations of older adults regarding the use of hearing aids. J Am Acad Audiol 2:129–133.
  • Newman CW, Weinstein BE. (1988). The Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly as a measure of hearing aid benefit. Ear Hear 9:81–85.
  • Norman M, George CR, McCarthy D. (1994). The effect of pre-fitting counseling on the outcome of hearing aid fittings. Scand Audiol 23:257–263.
  • Schum DJ. (1999). Perceived hearing aid benefit in relation to perceived needs. J Am Acad Audiol 10:40–45.
  • Seyfried DA. (1990). Use of Self-reports to Monitor Hearing Aid and Counseling Effects. UMI Dissertation Services, University of Iowa.
  • Surr R, Hawkins DB. (1988). New hearing aid users' perception of the "hearing aid effect." Ear Hear 9:113–118.
  • van den Brink RH, Wit HP, Kempen Gl, van Heuvelen MJ. (1996). Attitude and help-seeking for hearing impairment. Br J Audiol 30:313–324.
  • Walden BE, Demorest ME, Hepler EL. (1984). Self-report approach to assessing benefit derived from amplification. J Speech Hear Res 27:49–56.