Peer Perceptions of Geriatrics Wearing Hearing Aids

1982 ◽  
Vol 47 (4) ◽  
pp. 433-438 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karen L. Iler ◽  
Jeffrey L. Danhauer ◽  
Anthony Mulac
Keyword(s):  
Factor Analysis ◽  
Family Member ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Semantic Differential ◽  
Close Friend ◽  
Body Type ◽  
Peer Perceptions ◽  
Hearing Aid Use ◽  
Initial Impressions

This study investigated whether geriatric observers having varying amounts of experience with hearing aid users formed different initial impressions of their peers who were shown in three conditions of hearing aid use, and whether the size of the aid affected their ratings. Stimuli consisted of 36 photographic slides, three each of six men and six women shown wearing: (a) a body type hearing aid, (b) a post-auricular type aid, and (c) no aid. The stimuli were presented to 72 geriatric observers drawn from three groups: (a) 24 with no prior hearing aid experience, (b) 24 having some experience with a spouse, family member, or close friend who wore an aid, and (c) 24 who were hearing aid users. The observers rated the 12 geriatrics on a 16-item semantic differential. Factor analysis of the ratings resulted in three factors: achievement, personality, and appearance. Analyses of variance revealed that none of the three observer groups rated the geriatrics lower on any of the three factors when they were shown wearing hearing aids. These findings that these peer observers did not perceive a "hearing aid effect" for the geriatric hearing aid wearers.

Professional and Lay Observers' Impressions of Preschoolers Wearing Hearing Aids

1980 ◽  
Vol 45 (3) ◽  
pp. 415-422 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey L. Danhauer ◽  
Gordon W. Blood ◽  
Ingrid M. Blood ◽  
Nancy Gomez
Keyword(s):  
Factor Analysis ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Semantic Differential ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Semantic Differential Scale ◽  
Body Type ◽  
Factor I ◽  
Factor Ii ◽  
Photographic Slides

This study determined whether professional and lay observers had similar impressions of preschoolers wearing hearing aids and if the size of the aid affected ratings. Stimuli consisted of three photographic slides of nine normally-hearing and speaking male preschoolers wearing (1) a body-type hearing aid, (2) a post-auricular type aid, and (3) no aid. Slides were accompanied by taped speech samples. Stimuli were presented to 75 professional and 75 lay observers who rated the children on a semantic differential scale containing 15 adjectives. Ratings were submitted to a factor analysis revealing Factor I as achievement and Factor II as appearance. Results of MANOVAs revealed that neither professional nor lay observers discriminated against the children on appearance regardless of the presence of a hearing aid, but that both groups rated them significantly poorer on achievement when an aid was present. Lay observers' ratings showed a bias against the size of the aid, while professionals exhibited negative impressions whenever an aid was present, regardless of its size. These findings indicate that the "hearing aid effect" was present on variables of achievement even for normal-hearing preschoolers.

Hearing-Aid Outcome Measures Following One Month of Hearing Aid Use by the Elderly

2001 ◽  
Vol 44 (3) ◽  
pp. 469-486 ◽  
Author(s):  
Larry E. Humes ◽  
Carolyn B. Garner ◽  
Dana L. Wilson ◽  
Nancy N. Barlow
Keyword(s):  
Factor Analysis ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
The Elderly ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Elderly Persons ◽  
Impaired Hearing ◽  
Hearing Aid Use ◽  
Class D

This study reports the results of a large number of hearing-aid outcome measures obtained from 173 elderly hearing-aid wearers following one month of hearing-aid use. All participants in this study were fit binaurally with identical full-concha in-the-ear (ITE) hearing aids having linear Class-D amplifiers with output-limiting compression. Outcome measures included several measures of speech recognition, as well as several self-report measures of hearing-aid performance, benefit, satisfaction, and use. Comparison of mean data from this sample of hearing-aid wearers to other larger sets of data, obtained previously for several of these measures of hearing-aid outcome evaluated in isolation, indicated that the participants in this study were representative of the participants in other largerscale studies. Subsequent principal-components factor analysis of the data from this study indicated that there were seven distinct dimensions of hearing-aid outcome. Attempts to document the effectiveness and efficacy of hearing aids for elderly persons with impaired hearing will be most complete when assessing performance along all seven dimensions of hearing-aid outcome. Clinically efficient procedures for doing so are discussed.

scholarly journals Modeling and Predicting Hearing Aid Outcome

2003 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 41-75 ◽  
Author(s):  
Larry E. Humes
Keyword(s):  
Factor Analysis ◽  
Individual Differences ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Dynamic Range ◽  
Single Channel ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Wide Dynamic Range ◽  
Dynamic Range Compression ◽  
Hearing Aid Use

Following a brief tutorial on the application of factor analysis to hearing aid outcome measures, three studies of hearing aid outcome measures in elderly adults are presented and analyzed. Two of the studies were completed at Indiana University (IU-1 and IU-2), and one was a collaborative multisite study by the Veterans Administration and the National Institute of Deafness and other Communication Disorders (NIDCD/VA). IU-1 measured hearing aid outcome in 173 elderly wearers of single-channel, linear, in-the-ear hearing aids with output-limiting compression, whereas IU-2 obtained the same extensive set of outcome measures from 53 elderly wearers of two-channel, wide-dynamic-range compression, in-the-canal hearing aids. In the NIDCD/VA study, 333 to 338 participants wore three single-channel circuits in succession, with each circuit housed within an in-the-ear shell. The three circuits included in that study and in this analysis were: (1) linear with peak clipping, (2) linear with output-limiting compression, and (3) single-channel, wide-dynamic-range compression. Evaluation of the many outcome measures completed in each study using principal components factor analysis revealed that from three (both IU studies) to five (NIDCD/VA study) principal components captured the individual differences in hearing aid outcome. This was independent of hearing aid type (in-the-ear or in-the-canal) and circuitry. Subsequent multiple regression analyses of individual differences in performance along each dimension of hearing aid outcome revealed that these individual differences could be accounted for reasonably well by various prefit variables for some dimensions of outcome, but not others. In general, measures of speech recognition performance were well accounted for by prefit measures, with the best predictors being hearing loss, cognitive performance, and age. Measures of hearing aid usage were less well accounted for by prefit measures, with the most accurate predictor of current hearing aid use being prior hearing aid use. The outcome dimension accounted for most poorly was that associated with hearing aid satisfaction, with subjective measures of aided sound quality being the best predictor of performance along this dimension of hearing aid outcome. Additional multicenter, large-scale studies are needed to develop more complete models of hearing aid outcome and to identify the variables that influence various aspects of hearing aid outcome. It is only through this additional research that it will be possible to optimize outcome for hearing aid wearers.

The Hearing Aid Effect in African American and Caucasian Males as Perceived by Female Judges of the Same Race

1999 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 165-172 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mary Davis ◽  
Rhonda Jackson ◽  
Tina Smith ◽  
William Cooper
Keyword(s):  
African American ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Undergraduate Education ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Semantic Differential ◽  
Semantic Differential Scale ◽  
Education Majors ◽  
Female Undergraduate ◽  
Lay Persons ◽  
Males And Females

Prior studies have proven the existence of the "hearing aid effect" when photographs of Caucasian males and females wearing a body aid, a post-auricular aid (behind-the-ear), or no hearing aid were judged by lay persons and professionals. This study was performed to determine if African American and Caucasian males, judged by female members of their own race, were likely to be judged in a similar manner on the basis of appearance, personality, assertiveness, and achievement. Sixty female undergraduate education majors (30 African American; 30 Caucasian) used a semantic differential scale to rate slides of preteen African American and Caucasian males, with and without hearing aids. The results of this study showed that female African American and Caucasian judges rated males of their respective races differently. The hearing aid effect was predominant among the Caucasian judges across the dimensions of appearance, personality, assertiveness, and achievement. In contrast, the African American judges only exhibited a hearing aid effect on the appearance dimension.

Use of a Mild-Gain Hearing Aid by Middle-Age Normal-Hearing Adults Who Do and Do Not Self-Report Trouble Hearing in Background Noise

2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (3) ◽  
pp. 419-428
Author(s):  
Jasleen Singh ◽  
Karen A. Doherty
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Background Noise ◽  
Middle Age ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Normal Hearing ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Hearing Aid Use ◽  
Hearing Handicap ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Hearing Problems

Purpose The aim of the study was to assess how the use of a mild-gain hearing aid can affect hearing handicap, motivation, and attitudes toward hearing aids for middle-age, normal-hearing adults who do and do not self-report trouble hearing in background noise. Method A total of 20 participants (45–60 years of age) with clinically normal-hearing thresholds (< 25 dB HL) were enrolled in this study. Ten self-reported difficulty hearing in background noise, and 10 did not self-report difficulty hearing in background noise. All participants were fit with mild-gain hearing aids, bilaterally, and were asked to wear them for 2 weeks. Hearing handicap, attitudes toward hearing aids and hearing loss, and motivation to address hearing problems were evaluated before and after participants wore the hearing aids. Participants were also asked if they would consider purchasing a hearing aid before and after 2 weeks of hearing aid use. Results After wearing the hearing aids for 2 weeks, hearing handicap scores decreased for the participants who self-reported difficulty hearing in background noise. No changes in hearing handicap scores were observed for the participants who did not self-report trouble hearing in background noise. The participants who self-reported difficulty hearing in background noise also reported greater personal distress from their hearing problems, were more motivated to address their hearing problems, and had higher levels of hearing handicap compared to the participants who did not self-report trouble hearing in background noise. Only 20% (2/10) of the participants who self-reported trouble hearing in background noise reported that they would consider purchasing a hearing aid after 2 weeks of hearing aid use. Conclusions The use of mild-gain hearing aids has the potential to reduce hearing handicap for normal-hearing, middle-age adults who self-report difficulty hearing in background noise. However, this may not be the most appropriate treatment option for their current hearing problems given that only 20% of these participants would consider purchasing a hearing aid after wearing hearing aids for 2 weeks.

Hearing Technology Use and Management in School-Age Children: Reports from Data Logs, Parents, and Teachers

2017 ◽  
Vol 28 (10) ◽  
pp. 883-892 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samantha J. Gustafson ◽  
Todd A. Ricketts ◽  
Anne Marie Tharpe
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Parent Report ◽  
School Age Children ◽  
School Age ◽  
Data Logging ◽  
Hearing Aid Use ◽  
System Use ◽  
Children With Hearing Loss

Background: Consistency of hearing aid and remote microphone system use declines as school-age children with hearing loss age. One indicator of hearing aid use time is data logging, another is parent report. Recent data suggest that parents overestimate their children’s hearing aid use time relative to data logging. The potential reasons for this disparity remain unclear. Because school-age children spend the majority of their day away from their parents and with their teachers, reports from teachers might serve as a valuable and additional tool for estimating hearing aid use time and management. Purpose: This study expands previous research on factors influencing hearing aid use time in school-age children using data logging records. Discrepancies between data logging records and parent reports were explored using custom surveys designed for parents and teachers. Responses from parents and teachers were used to examine hearing aid use, remote microphone system use, and hearing aid management in school-age children. Study Sample: Thirteen children with mild-to-moderate hearing loss between the ages of 7 and 10 yr and their parents participated in this study. Teachers of ten of these children also participated. Data Collection and Analysis: Parents and teachers of children completed written surveys about each child’s hearing aid use, remote microphone system use, and hearing aid management skills. Data logs were read from hearing aids using manufacturer’s software. Multiple linear regression analysis and an intraclass correlation coefficient were used to examine factors influencing hearing aid use time and parent agreement with data logs. Parent report of hearing aid use time was compared across various activities and school and nonschool days. Survey responses from parents and teachers were compared to explore areas requiring potential improvement in audiological counseling. Results: Average daily hearing aid use time was ˜6 hr per day as recorded with data logging technology. Children exhibiting greater degrees of hearing loss and those with poorer vocabulary were more likely to use hearing aids consistently than children with less hearing loss and better vocabulary. Parents overestimated hearing aid use by ˜1 hr per day relative to data logging records. Parent-reported use of hearing aids varied across activities but not across school and nonschool days. Overall, parents and teachers showed excellent agreement on hearing aid and remote microphone system use during school instruction but poor agreement when asked about the child’s ability to manage their hearing devices independently. Conclusions: Parental reports of hearing aid use in young school-age children are largely consistent with data logging records and with teacher reports of hearing aid use in the classroom. Audiologists might find teacher reports helpful in learning more about children’s hearing aid management and remote microphone system use during their time at school. This supplementary information can serve as an additional counseling tool to facilitate discussion about remote microphone system use and hearing aid management in school-age children with hearing loss.

Reliability and Stability of Various Hearing-Aid Outcome Measures in a Group of Elderly Hearing-Aid Wearers

1996 ◽  
Vol 39 (5) ◽  
pp. 923-935 ◽  
Author(s):  
Larry E. Humes ◽  
Dan Halling ◽  
Maureen Coughlin
Keyword(s):  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Nonsense Syllable ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Objective Measure ◽  
The Elderly ◽  
Elderly Persons ◽  
Hearing Aid Use ◽  
Hearing Handicap

Twenty elderly persons with hearing impairment were fit with binaural in-the-ear hearing aids and followed for a 6-month period post-fit. Several hearing-aid outcome measures were obtained at 0, 7, 15, 30, 60, 90, and 180 days post-fit. Outcome measures included (a) objective measures of benefit obtained with nonsense-syllable materials in quiet (CUNY Nonsense Syllable Test, NST) and sentences in multitalker babble (Hearing in Noise Test, HINT); (b) two subjective measures of benefit, one derived from pre-fit/post-fit comparisons on a general scale of hearing handicap (Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly, HHIE) and the other based on a subjective scale of post-fit hearing-aid benefit (Hearing Aid Performance Inventory, HAPI); (c) a questionnaire on hearing-aid satisfaction; (d) an objective measure of hearing-aid use; and (e) a subjective measure of hearing-aid use. Reliability and stability of each measure were examined through repeated-measures analyses of variance, a series of test-retest correlations, and, where possible, scatterplots of the scores against their corresponding 95% critical differences. Many of the measures were found to be both reliable and stable indicators of hearing-aid outcome.

scholarly journals Factors Influencing Help Seeking, Hearing Aid Uptake, Hearing Aid Use and Satisfaction With Hearing Aids: A Review of the Literature

2010 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 127-154 ◽  
Author(s):  
Line Vestergaard Knudsen ◽  
Marie Öberg ◽  
Claus Nielsen ◽  
Graham Naylor ◽  
Sophia E. Kramer
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Help Seeking ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Review Of The Literature ◽  
Factors Influencing ◽  
Hearing Aid Use

Hearing Loss, Control, and Demographic Factors Influencing Hearing Aid Use Among Older Adults

1998 ◽  
Vol 41 (3) ◽  
pp. 527-537 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dean C. Garstecki ◽  
Susan F. Erler
Keyword(s):  
Older Adults ◽  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Psychological Control ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Demographic Factors ◽  
Ego Strength ◽  
Hearing Sensitivity ◽  
Hearing Aid Use ◽  
Hearing Handicap

Preference for non-use of hearing aids among older adults who are candidates for amplification remains to be explained. Clinical studies have examined the contribution of consumer attitudes, behaviors, and life circumstances to this phenomenon. The present study extends the interests of earlier investigators in that it examines psychological control tendencies in combination with hearing loss and demographic variables among older adults who elected to accept (adherents) or ignore (nonadherents) advice from hearing professionals to acquire and use hearing aids. One hundred thirty-one individuals participated by completing measures of hearing, hearing handicap, psychological control, depression, and ego strength. Participants were asked to provide demographic information and personal opinions regarding hearing aid use. Adherence group and gender differences were noted on measures of hearing sensitivity, psychological control, and demographic factors. Female adherents demonstrated greater hearing loss and poorer word recognition ability but less hearing handicap, higher internal locus of control, higher ego strength, and fewer depressive tendencies than female nonadherents. They reported demographic advantages. Female adherents assumed responsibility for effective communication. Although male adherents and nonadherents did not differ significantly demographically, male adherents were more accepting of their hearing loss, took responsibility for communication problems, and found hearing aids less stigmatizing. Implications for clinical practice and future clinical investigations are identified and discussed. Results are expected to be of interest to clinicians, clinical investigators, and health care policymakers.

Noise Exposure Associated With Hearing Aid Use in Industry

1996 ◽  
Vol 39 (2) ◽  
pp. 251-260 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas G. Dolan ◽  
James F. Maurer
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Noise Exposure ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Sound Field ◽  
High Gain ◽  
Sound Level ◽  
Weighted Averages ◽  
Hearing Aid Use ◽  
Listening Environments ◽  
Level Meter

Although noise may be innocuous in many vocational environments, there is a growing concern in industry that it can reach hazardous levels when amplified by hearing aids. This study examined the daily noise exposures associated with hearing aid use in industry. This was done by both laboratory and site measurements in which hearing aids were coupled to the microphone of an integrating sound level meter or dosimeter. The former method involved the use of recorded railroad and manufacturing noise and a Bruel and Kjaer 4128 Head and Torso simulator. In the latter procedure, a worker wore one of three hearing aids coupled to a dosimeter during 8-hour shifts in a manufacturing plant. Both methods demonstrated that even when amplified by mild-gain hearing aids, noise exposures rose from time-weighted averages near 80 dBA to well above the OSHA maximum of 90 dBA. The OSHA maximum was also exceeded when moderate and high gain instruments were worn in non-occupational listening environments. The results suggest that current OSHA regulations that limit noise exposure in sound field are inappropriate for hearing aid users.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document