Longitudinal Study of Hearing Aid Effectiveness. II Subjective Measures Research Article
Research Article  |   August 01, 1993
Longitudinal Study of Hearing Aid Effectiveness. II
 
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Ruth A. Bentler
    University of Iowa Iowa City
  • Diane P. Niebuhr
    University of Iowa Iowa City
  • Janet P. Getta
    University of Iowa Iowa City
  • Charles V. Anderson
    University of Iowa Iowa City
  • Contact author: Ruth A. Bentler, PhD, Department of Speech Pathology and Audiology, Wendell Johnson Speech and Hearing Center, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242.
Article Information
Hearing Aids, Cochlear Implants & Assistive Technology / Hearing / Research Articles
Research Article   |   August 01, 1993
Longitudinal Study of Hearing Aid Effectiveness. II
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, August 1993, Vol. 36, 820-831. doi:10.1044/jshr.3604.820
History: Received August 4, 1992 , Accepted March 5, 1993
 
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, August 1993, Vol. 36, 820-831. doi:10.1044/jshr.3604.820
History: Received August 4, 1992; Accepted March 5, 1993

This report is the second of two detailing a longitudinal follow-up of hearing aid users. The experimental group (N=65) was followed closely for a 12-month period after obtaining amplification. Factors of degree of hearing loss, configuration of hearing loss, previous experience with hearing aids, daily use time, and circuit type were defined. Subjective tests included the “Understanding Speech” subsection of the Hearing Performance Inventory (HPI) (Giolas, Owens, Lamb, & Schubert, 1979; Lamb, Owens, & Schubert, 1983), an expectations checklist, a qualitative judgment task, and a satisfaction questionnaire that included items of use time, battery life, and main reason for satisfaction rating. Only those items of the HPI describing fairly quiet backgrounds showed significant change (improvement) over the year. The expectation checklist showed a mean reduction in score indicative of performance exceeding expectations. The qualitative judgment task did not significantly differentiate among the circuits used, although the linear circuit was judged as having better sound quality than those circuits considered to be noise-reduction. Correlations with the objective tests reported previously in Part I suggest a weak relationship between speech recognition performance and self-assessment of communication performance. Questions of the validity of subjective measures, the best time frame for obtaining outcome measures, and the usefulness of group data are addressed.

Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge the efforts of Deb Seyfried, Zezhang Hou, and John Tsimikas for their assistance in the data collection and analysis. The work done by Colleen Thompson in the preparation of the manuscript is greatly appreciated. The useful comments and suggestions provided by Dave Fabry and Jerry Punch are also acknowledged and appreciated.
Order a Subscription
Pay Per View
Entire Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research content & archive
24-hour access
This Article
24-hour access