Download PDF
Semin Hear 2001; 22(3): 303-316
DOI: 10.1055/s-2001-15633
Copyright © 2001 by Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc., 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA. Tel.: +1(212) 584-4662

Issues in Evaluating the Effectiveness of Hearing Aids in the Elderly: What to Measure and When

Larry E. Humes
  • Audiology Research Laboratory, Department of Speech and Hearing Sciences, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
31 December 2001 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

ABSTRACT

This article reviews recent findings from the author's laboratory on hearing-aid outcome measures for elderly hearing-aid wearers. A factor analysis of 26 hearing-aid outcome measures from 173 elderly hearing-aid wearers after 1 month of hearing aid use identified seven independent dimensions of hearing-aid outcome. Each of these dimensions is described, and viable clinical measures of performance for each dimension are discussed. Knowledge of when to obtain these outcome measures is as important as knowing what to measure. A brief review of prior data on acclimatization to hearing aids as well as of data from 134 elderly hearing-aid wearers evaluated in the author's laboratory after 1-month, 6-months, and 1-year of hearing aid use provides some guidance for this issue.

KEYWORD

Elderly - hearing aids - outcome measures - acclimatization

REFERENCES

  • 1 U.S. Bureau of the Census. Current Population Reports, Special Studies, 123-178, Sixty-Five Plus in America Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office; 1992
  • 2 Schoenborn C, Marano M. Current estimates from the National Health Interview Survey: United States, 1987. Vital and Health Statistics, 10, No 166. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office; 1988
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 3 Kochkin S. MarkeTrak III: why 20 million in U.S. don't use hearing aids for their hearing loss. Part I.  Hear J . 1993;  46(1) 20-27
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Kochkin S. MarkeTrak III: why 20 million in U.S. don't use hearing aids for their hearing loss. Part II.  Hear J . 1993;  46(2) 26-31
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Kochkin S. MarkeTrak III: why 20 million in U.S. don't use hearing aids for their hearing loss. Part III.  Hear J . 1993;  46(4) 36-37
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Kochkin S. Customer satisfaction and subjective benefit with high-performance hearing instruments.  Hear Rev . 1996;  3(12) 16-26
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Kochkin S. Customer satisfaction with single and multiple microphone digital hearing aids.  Hear Rev . 2000;  7(11) 24-34
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Skafte M D. The 1999 hearing instrument market-the dispensers' perspective.  Hear Rev . 2000;  7(6) 8-40
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Tillman T W, Carhart R, Olsen W O. Hearing aid efficiency in a competing speech situation.  J Speech Hear Res . 1970;  13 789-811
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Plomp R. Auditory handicap of hearing impairment and the limited benefit of hearing aids.  J Acoust Soc Amer . 1978;  63 533-549
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Humes L E, Christensen L A, Bess F H, Hedley-Williams A. A comparison of the benefit provided by well-fit linear hearing aids and instruments with automatic reductions of low-frequency gain.  J Speech Lang Hear Res . 1997;  40 666-685
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Humes L E, Christensen L A, Thomas T, Bess F H, Hedley-Williams A, Bentler R. A comparison of the aided performance and benefit provided by a linear and a two-channel wide dynamic range compression hearing aid.  J Speech Lang Hear Res . 1999;  42 65-79
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Walden B E, Surr R K, Cord M T, Pavlovic C V. A clinical trial of the ReSound BT2 Personal Hearing System.  Am J Audiol . 1998;  7 85-100
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Walden B E, Surr R K, Cord M T, Pavlovic C V. A clinical trial of the ReSound IC4 hearing device.  Am J Audiol . 1999;  8 65-78
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Larson V D, Williams D W, Henderson W G. Efficacy of 3 commonly used hearing aid circuits: a crossover trial.  JAMA . 2000;  284 1806-1813
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Humes L E, Garner C B, Wilson D L, Barlow N N. Hearing-aid outcome measures following one month of hearing aid use by the elderly.  J Speech Lang Hear Res (in press).
    PubMed
  • 17 Bentler R, Niebuhr D, Getta J, Anderson C. Longitudinal study of hearing aid effectiveness. I: Objective measures.  J Speech Hear Res . 1993;  36 808-819
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Bentler R, Niebuhr D, Getta J, Anderson C. Longitudinal study of hearing aid effectiveness. II: Subjective measures.  J Speech Hear Res . 1993;  36 820-831
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Cox R, Alexander G. Maturation of hearing aid benefit: objective and subjective measurements.  Ear Hear . 1992;  13 131-141
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Cox R M, Alexander G C. Measuring satisfaction with amplification in daily life: the SADL scale.  Ear Hear . 1999;  20 306-320
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Dillon H, James A, Ginis J. 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 . 1997;  8 27-43
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Dillon H, Birtles G, Lovegrove R. 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 . 1999;  10 67-79
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Gatehouse S. Determinants of self-reported disability in older subjects.  Ear Hear . 1990;  11 57S-65S
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 24 Gatehouse S. Hearing aid evaluation: limitations of present procedures and future requirements.  J Speech Lang Pathol Audiol . 1993;  1(Mono Suppl) 50-57
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 25 Gatehouse S. Components and determinants of hearing aid benefit.  Ear Hear . 1994;  15 30-49
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 26 Gatehouse S. Glasgow Hearing aid benefit profile: derivation and validation of a client-centered outcome measure for hearing aid services.  J Am Acad Audiol . 1999;  10 80-103
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 27 Humes L E. Dimensions of hearing aid outcome.  J Am Acad Audiol . 1999;  10 26-39
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 28 Humes L E, Halling D, Coughlin M. Reliability and stability of various hearing aid outcome measures in a group of elderly hearing aid wearers.  J Speech Hear Res . 1996;  39 923-935
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 29 Kochkin S. Subjective measures of satisfaction and benefit: establishing norms.  Semin Hear . 1997;  18 37-48
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 30 Kochkin S. MarkeTrak V: consumer satisfaction revisited. Hear J .  2000;  53(1) 38-55
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 31 Mueller G. Outcome measures: the truth about your hearing aid fittings.  Hear J . 1997;  50 21-32
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 32 Mulrow C, Aguilar C, Endicott J. Quality of life changes and hearing impairment.  Ann Intern Med . 1990;  113 188-194
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 33 Mulrow C, Tuley M, Aguilar C. Sustained benefits of hearing aids.  J Speech Hear Res . 1992;  35 1402-1405
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 34 Mulrow C, Tuley M, Aguilar C. Correlates of successful hearing aid use in older adults.  Ear Hear . 1992;  13 108-113
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 35 Newman C W, Sandridge S A. Benefit from, satisfaction with, and cost-effectiveness of three different hearing aid technologies.  Am J Audiol . 1998;  7 115-128
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 36 Schum D J. Perceived hearing aid benefit in relation to perceived needs.  J Am Acad Audiol . 1999;  10 40-45
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 37 Stelmachowicz P G. Hearing aid outcome measures for children.  J Am Acad Audiol . 1999;  10 14-25
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 38 Walden B E. Toward a model clinical-trials protocol for substantiating hearing aid user-benefit claims.  Am J Audiol . 1997;  6 13-24
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 39 Walden B E, Surr R K, Cord M T, Edwards B, Olson L. Comparison of benefits provided by different hearing aid technologies.  J Am Acad Audiol . 2000;  11 540-560
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 40 Weinstein B. Treatment efficacy: Hearing aids in the management of hearing loss in adults.  J Speech Hear Res . 1996;  39 S37-S45
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 41 Weinstein B. Outcome measures in the hearing aid fitting/selection process.  Trends Amplification . 1997;  2 117-137
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 42 Walden B E, Demorest M E, Hepler E L. Self-report approach to assessing benefit derived from amplification.  J Speech Hear Res . 1984;  27 49-56
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 43 Hosford-Dunn H, Halpern J. Clinical application of the satisfaction with amplification in daily life scale in private practice. I: Statistical, content and factorial validity.  J Am Acad Audiol . 2000;  11 523-539
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 44 Hosford-Dunn H L, Halpern J. Clinical application of the SADL scale in private practice. II: Predictive validity of fitting variables.  J Am Acad Audiol . 2001;  12 15-36
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 45 Cox R M, Alexander G C. The abbreviated profile of hearing aid benefit.  Ear Hear . 1995;  16 176-186
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 46 Schum D. Responses of elderly hearing aid users on the hearing aid performance inventory.  J Am Acad Audiol . 1992;  3 308-314
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 47 Dillon H. Shortened hearing aid performance inventory for the elderly (SHAPIE): a statistical approach.  Aust J Audiol . 1994;  16 37-48
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 48 Ventry I, Weinstein B. The hearing handicap inventory for the elderly: a new tool.  Ear Hear . 1982;  3 128-134
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 49 Malinoff R, Weinstein B. Measurement of hearing aid benefit in the elderly.  Ear Hear . 1989;  10 354-356
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 50 Levitt H, Resnick S B. Speech reception by the hearing impaired: methods of testing and development of materials.  Scand Audiol Suppl . 1978;  6 107-129
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 51 Cox R, Alexander G, Gilmore C, Puskalich K M. Use of the connected speech test (CST) with hearing-impaired listeners.  Ear Hear . 1988;  9 198-207
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 52 Humes L E, Watson B U, Christensen L A, Cokely C G, Halling D C, Lee L. Factors associated with individual differences in clinical measures of speech recognition among the elderly.  J Speech Lang Hear Res . 1994;  37 465-474
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 53 Gabrielsson A, Schenkman B N, Hagerman B. The effects of different frequency responses on sound quality judgments and speech intelligibility.  J Speech Hear Res . 1988;  31 166-177
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 54 Cox R M, McDaniel D M. Development of the speech intelligibility rating (SIR) test for hearing aid comparisons.  J Speech Hear Res . 1989;  32 347-352
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 55 Gatehouse S. The time course and magnitude of perceptual acclimatization to frequency responses: evidence from monaural fitting of hearing aids.  J Acoust Soc Am . 1992;  92 1258-1268
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 56 Turner C W, Humes L E, Bentler R A, Cox R M. A review of past research on changes in hearing aid benefit over time.  Ear Hear . 1996;  17 14S-25S
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 57 Saunders G H, Cienkowski K M. Acclimatization to hearing aids.  Ear Hear . 1997;  18 129-139
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 58 Surr R, Cord M, Walden B. Long-term versus short-term hearing aid benefit.  J Am Acad Audiol . 1998;  9 165-171
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar