Download PDF
J Am Acad Audiol 1999; 10(02): 67-79
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1748459
Original Article

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)

Harvey Dillon
National Acoustic Laboratories, Chatswood, Australia
,
Greg Birtles
National Acoustic Laboratories, Chatswood, Australia
,
Roger Lovegrove
National Acoustic Laboratories, Chatswood, Australia
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
  PDF Download  Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Self-report outcome measures were routinely collected from 4421 adult clients around Australia. The measures used were the Hearing Aid User’s Questionnaire (HAUQ), which assessed hearing aid use, benefit, problems, and satisfaction, and the Client Oriented Scale of Improvement (COSI), which identified client needs, change in listening ability, and final listening ability in situations important to each client. Listening to television or radio and conversing with one or two others in a quiet place were the most frequently nominated needs. The benefit reported for noisy places was less than for quiet places, but very positive nonetheless. The normative data collected show a marked concentration of responses near the upper end of the scale for each of the outcome items except daily use. Consequently, correlations between the measures, although highly significant, were mostly less than 0.4. When the data were collapsed across subjects seen at each hearing center, benefit, satisfaction, usage, and problems with the hearing aids became much more strongly correlated with each other, with correlation coefficients up to 0.8. Benefit, satisfaction, usage, and the types of problems clients encountered with their hearing aids varied significantly from hearing center to hearing center. The most frequently reported problem was dissatisfaction with the quality of the subjects’ own voices (i.e., occlusion effect), followed by feedback. The problems most closely related to usage, benefit, and satisfaction, however, were the presence of feedback, comfort of the earmold or earshell, and the quality of the users’ own voices. These outcome measures appear to be most suitable for identifying needs, identifying individuals receiving markedly less than average benefit, and for finding small differences between outcomes for subgroups of the population.

Abbreviations: ANOVA = analysis of variance; APHAB = Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit; BTE = behind the ear; COSI = Client Oriented Scale of Improvement; GAS = Goal Attainment Scaling; HAUQ = Hearing Aid User’s Questionnaire; HHIE = Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly; ITE = in the ear; NAL = National Acoustic Laboratories; NAL-RP = NAL Revised Profound; SSPL = saturation sound pressure level

Key Words

Benefit - hearing aids - outcomes assessment - rehabilitation - satisfaction - usage


Publication History

Article published online:
27 April 2022

© 1999. 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

  • Byrne D, Dillon Η. (1986). The National Acoustic Laboratories’ (NAL) new procedure for selecting the gain and frequency response of a hearing aid. Ear Hear 7:257–265.
  • Byrne D, Parkinson A, Newall P. (1990). Hearing aid gain and frequency response requirements for the severely/profoundly hearing impaired. Ear Hear 11:40–49.
  • Cox RM, Alexander GC. (1995). The abbreviated profile of hearing aid benefit. Ear Hear 16:176–186.
  • Dillon H, James A, Ginis J. (1997). The 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 Η, Koritschoner Ε, Battaglia J, Lovegrove R, Ginis J, Mavrias G, Carnie L, Ray P, Forsythe L, Towers E, Goulias H, Macaskill F. (1991). Rehabilitation effectiveness I: assessing the needs of clients entering a national hearing rehabilitation program. Aust J Audiol 13:55–65.
  • Dillon H, Storey L. (1998). The National Acoustic Laboratories procedure for selecting the Saturated Sound Pressure Level of Hearing Aids: theoretical derivation. Ear Hear 19:255–266.
  • Forster S, Tomlin A. (1988). Hearing Aid Usage in Queensland. Paper presented at the Audiological Society of Australia Conference, Perth.
  • Henrichsen J, Noring E, Christensen B, Pedersen F, Parving A. (1988). In-the-ear hearing aids. The use and benefit in the elderly hearing-impaired. Scand Audiol 17:209–212.
  • Henrichsen J, Noring E, Lindeman L, Christensen B, Parving A. (1991). The use and benefit of in-the-ear hearing aids. A four year follow-up examination. Scand Audiol 20:55–59.
  • Macrae JH, Dillon H. (1996). Gain, frequency response and maximum output requirements for hearing aids. J Rehabil Res Dev 33:363–376.
  • Storey L, Dillon H, Yeend I, Wigney D. (1998). The National Acoustic Laboratories procedure for selecting the Saturated Sound Pressure Level of Hearing Aids: experimental validation. Ear Hear 19:267–279.
  • Ventry IM, Weinstein BE. (1982). The Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly: a new tool. Ear Hear 3:128–134.
  • Vesterager V, Sibelle P, Boisen G. (1993). Effectiveness of rehabilitation with hearing instruments—results of three years of systematic follow up. In: Recent Developments in Hearing Instrument Technology. Proceedings of the 15th Danavox Symposium. Copenhagen: Stougaard Jensen, 465–468.
  • Walden Β, Demorest Μ, Hepler E. (1984). Self-report approach to assessing benefit derived from amplification. J Speech Hear Res 27:49–56.
  • Warland A, Tbnning F. (1988). An evaluation of the use and benefit of in-the-canal hearing aids. In: Hearing Aid Fitting. Proceedings of the 13th Danavox Symposium. Copenhagen: Stougaard Jensen, 347–358.