Download PDF
J Am Acad Audiol 2000; 11(10): 523-539
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1748199
Original Article

Clinical Application of the Satisfaction with Amplification in Daily Life Scale in Private Practice I: Statistical, Content, and Factorial Validity

Holly Hosford-Dunn
TAI, Inc., Tucson, Arizona
,
Jerry Halpern
Department of Biostatistics, Stanford University, Stanford, California
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
  PDF Download  Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Statistical, content, and factorial validity of the Satisfaction with Amplification in Daily Life (SADL) scale was assessed. SADL subscales closely correspond to four satisfaction domains. Subjective benefit is a key component of satisfaction, but other nonauditory factors contribute to wearer satisfaction, notably telephone use and appearance. Results confirm the SADL's psychometric properties and verify its use to validate hearing aid fitting satisfaction in private practice settings for a general patient population at 1–year postfitting. Interim SADL norms may be refined as more SADL data are obtained for different patient populations, hearing aid types, and fitting environments.

Abbreviations: PP-SADL = private practice SADL group, SADL = Satisfaction with Amplification in Daily Life

Key Words

Hearing aids - outcome measures - Satisfaction with Amplification in Daily Life


Publication History

Article published online:
20 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

  • Abrams Η, Hnath-Chisolm Τ. (2000). Outcomes. In: Hosford-Dunn HL, Roeser R, Valente Μ, eds. Audiology Practice Management. New York: Thieme.
  • Byrne D, Dillon H. (1986). New procedure for selecting gain and frequency response of a hearing aid: The National Acoustics Laboratory (NAL) formula. Ear Hear 7:257–265.
  • Carey A. (1967). The Hawthorne Studies. Am Sociol Rev 32:403–417.
  • Cox RM, Alexander GC. (1999). Measuring satisfaction with amplification in daily life: the SADL scale. Ear Hear 20:306–319.
  • Cronbach LJ. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 16:297–334.
  • Dillon H, James A, Ginis J. (1997). 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 8:27–43.
  • Dillon H, Birtles G, Lovegrove R. (1999). Measuring the outcomes of a national rehabilitation program: normative data for the Client Oriented Scale of Improvement (COSI) and the Hearing Aid User's Questionnaire (HAUQ). J Am Acad Audiol 10:67–79.
  • 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.
  • Hosford-Dunn HL, Baxter JH. (1985). Prediction and validation of hearing aid wearer benefit: preliminary findings. Hear Instr 36:34–41.
  • Hosford-Dunn HL, Halpern J. (2000). Validation of the SADL, Part II: influence of patient and technological variables. J Am Acad Audiol (in press).
  • Hosford-Dunn HL, Huch JL. (2000). Acceptance, benefit, and satisfaction measures of hearing aid user attitudes. In: Sandlin R, McCandless G, eds. Hearing and Amplification. 2nd Ed. San Diego: Singular.
  • Huch JL, Hosford-Dunn H. (2000). Inventory of self-report outcome measures of hearing aid use. In: Sandlin R, McCandless G, eds. Hearing and Amplification. 2nd Ed. San Diego: Singular.
  • Humes LE. (1999). Dimensions of hearing aid outcome. J Am Acad Audiol 10:26–39.
  • Iskowitz M. (1999). Back to the future in fitting. Advance for Speech-Language Pathologists & Audiologists March 15:7–9.
  • Jerger J, Chmiel R, Stach Β, Spretnjak Μ. (1993). Gender affects audiometric shape in presbycusis. J Am Acad Audiol 4:42–49.
  • Kochkin S. (1993). MarkeTrak III identifies key factors in determining customer satisfaction. Hear J 46(8):39–44.
  • Kochkin S. (1995). Consumer satisfaction and benefit with CIC hearing instruments. Hear Rev 2(4):16–26.
  • Kochkin S. (1996). Customer satisfaction and subjective benefit with high performance hearing aids. In: Kochkin S, Strom KE, eds. High Performance Hearing Solutions. Hear Rev 2(Suppl):4–10.
  • Kochkin S. (2000). MarkeTrak V: Consumer satisfaction revisited. Hear J 53(l):38–55.
  • Medwetsky L, Sanderson D, Young D. (1999). A national survey of audiology clinical practices, Part 2. Hear Rev 6(12): 14–22.
  • Mueller HG. (1997). Outcome measures: the truth about your hearing aid fittings. Hear J 50(4):21–33.
  • Northern JL, Beyer CM. (1999). Hearing aid returns analyzed in search for patient and fitting patterns. Hear J 52(7):46–52.
  • Oja GL, Schow RL. (1984). Hearing aid evaluation based on measures of benefit, use, and satisfaction. Ear Hear 5:77–86.
  • Resnick S. (1998). Breakdown in the fitting process. In: Tobin H, ed. Practical Hearing Aid Selection and Fitting. Washington, DC: Department of Veterans Affairs.
  • Surr R, Cord M, Walden B. (1998). Long-term versus short-term hearing aid benefit. J Am Acad Audiol 9:165–171.
  • Van Vliet D. (2000). Hide and seek. Hear J 53(1):88.
  • Walden Β, Demorest Μ, Hepler E. (1984). Self-report approach to assessing benefit derived from amplification. J Speech Hear Res 27:49–56.