scholarly journals Is the Device-Oriented Subjective Outcome (DOSO) Independent of Personality?

2017 ◽  
Vol 28 (10) ◽  
pp. 932-940 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yu-Hsiang Wu ◽  
Kelsey Dumanch ◽  
Elizabeth Stangl ◽  
Christi Miller ◽  
Kelly Tremblay ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Personality Traits ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
The Elderly ◽  
Outcome Data ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Elderly Adult ◽  
Subjective Outcome ◽  
Hearing Aid Benefit ◽  
The Relationship

Background: Self-report questionnaires are a frequently used method of evaluating hearing aid outcomes. Studies have shown that personality can account for 5–20% of the variance in response to self-report measures. As a result, these influences can impact results and limit their generalizability when the purpose of the study is to examine the technological merit of hearing aids. To reduce personality influences on self-report outcome data, the Device-Oriented Subjective Outcome (DOSO) was developed. The DOSO is meant to demonstrate outcomes of the amplification device relatively independent of the individual’s personality. Still, it is unknown if the DOSO achieves its original goal. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between personality and the DOSO. The relationship between personality and several widely used hearing-related questionnaires was also examined. Research Design: This is a nonexperimental study using a correlational design. Study Sample: A total of 119 adult hearing aid wearers participated in the study. Data Collection and Analysis: The NEO Five-Factor Inventory was used to measure five personality traits (Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness). The initial (unaided) hearing disablement, residual (aided) hearing disablement, and hearing aid benefit and satisfaction was measured using the DOSO, Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly/Adult, Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit, and Satisfaction with Amplification in Daily Life. The relationship between personality and each questionnaire was examined using a correlation analysis. Results: All of the DOSO subscales were found to be significantly correlated to personality, regardless of whether age and better-ear hearing thresholds were controlled. Individuals who reported poorer hearing aid outcomes tended to have higher Neuroticism scores, while those who scored higher in Extraversion, Openness, and Agreeableness were more likely to report better outcomes. Across DOSO subscales, the maximum variance explained by personality traits ranged from 6% to 11%. Consistent with the literature, ˜3–18% of the variance of other hearing-related questionnaires was attributable to personality. Conclusions: The degree to which personality affects the DOSO is similar to other hearing-related questionnaires. Although the variance accounted for by personality is not large, researchers and clinicians should not assume that the results of the DOSO are independent of personality.

The Relationship Between Hearing Loss Self-Management and Hearing Aid Benefit and Satisfaction

2019 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 274-284 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Convery ◽  
Gitte Keidser ◽  
Louise Hickson ◽  
Carly Meyer
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Self Management ◽  
Hearing Aid Benefit ◽  
The Relationship

Purpose Hearing loss self-management refers to the knowledge and skills people use to manage the effects of hearing loss on all aspects of their daily lives. The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between self-reported hearing loss self-management and hearing aid benefit and satisfaction. Method Thirty-seven adults with hearing loss, all of whom were current users of bilateral hearing aids, participated in this observational study. The participants completed self-report inventories probing their hearing loss self-management and hearing aid benefit and satisfaction. Correlation analysis was used to investigate the relationship between individual domains of hearing loss self-management and hearing aid benefit and satisfaction. Results Participants who reported better self-management of the effects of their hearing loss on their emotional well-being and social participation were more likely to report less aided listening difficulty in noisy and reverberant environments and greater satisfaction with the effect of their hearing aids on their self-image. Participants who reported better self-management in the areas of adhering to treatment, participating in shared decision making, accessing services and resources, attending appointments, and monitoring for changes in their hearing and functional status were more likely to report greater satisfaction with the sound quality and performance of their hearing aids. Conclusion Study findings highlight the potential for using information about a patient's hearing loss self-management in different domains as part of clinical decision making and management planning.

Changes in Hearing-Aid Benefit Following 1 or 2 Years of Hearing-Aid Use by Older Adults

2002 ◽  
Vol 45 (4) ◽  
pp. 772-782 ◽  
Author(s):  
Larry E. Humes ◽  
Dana L. Wilson ◽  
Nancy N. Barlow ◽  
Carolyn Garner
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
The Elderly ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Individual Data ◽  
Data Set ◽  
Hearing Aid Use ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Almost All ◽  
Hearing Aid Benefit

This study reports the results of a large number of hearing-aid benefit measures obtained from 134 elderly hearing-aid wearers during the first year of hearing-aid usage. Benefit measures were obtained after 1 month, 6 months, and 1 year of hearing-aid use by all participants. In addition, follow-up measurements of hearing-aid benefit were performed on 49 of these same hearing-aid wearers following 2 years of hearing-aid use. All participants in this study were fit binaurally with identical full-concha in-the-ear (ITE) hearing aids that used linear Class-D amplifiers with output-limiting compression. Benefit measures included several objective tests of speech recognition, as well as the subjective self-report scales of the Hearing Aid Performance Inventory (HAPI; B. E. Walden, M. E. Demorest, & E. L. Hepler) and the Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly (HHIE; I. Ventry & B. Weinstein, 1982). Although group means changed only slightly over time for all of the benefit measures, significant differences were observed for some of the benefit measures, especially among the subjective, self-report measures of benefit. In almost all of the cases exhibiting significant changes, performance was significantly worse (less benefit) at both the 6-month and 1-year post-fit interval compared to the measurements at 1 month post-fit. In general, the individual data from the 134 participants who were represented in the 1-year data set were consistent with the trends in the group data described above. Regarding longer term changes in benefit following 2 years of hearing-aid use, minimal changes were again observed. In all, there was little evidence for acclimatization of hearing-aid benefit in this study in either the group or the individual data.

scholarly journals Comparison of In-Situ and Retrospective Self-Reports on Assessing Hearing Aid Outcomes

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yu-Hsiang Wu ◽  
Elizabeth Stangl ◽  
Octav Chipara ◽  
Anna Gudjonsdottir ◽  
Jacob Oleson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Outcome Data ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Data Collection And Analysis ◽  
Self Reports ◽  
Outcome Difference ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Ecological Momentary

Abstract Background Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) is a methodology involving repeated surveys to collect in-situ self-reports that describe respondents' current or recent experiences. Audiology literature comparing in-situ and retrospective self-reports is scarce. Purpose To compare the sensitivity of in-situ and retrospective self-reports in detecting the outcome difference between hearing aid technologies, and to determine the association between in-situ and retrospective self-reports. Research Design An observational study. Study Sample Thirty-nine older adults with hearing loss. Data Collection and Analysis The study was part of a larger clinical trial that compared the outcomes of a prototype hearing aid (denoted as HA1) and a commercially available device (HA2). In each trial condition, participants wore hearing aids for 4 weeks. Outcomes were measured using EMA and retrospective questionnaires. To ensure that the outcome data could be directly compared, the Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit Profile was administered as an in-situ self-report (denoted as EMA-GHABP) and as a retrospective questionnaire (retro-GHABP). Linear mixed models were used to determine if the EMA- and retro-GHABP could detect the outcome difference between HA1 and HA2. Correlation analyses were used to examine the association between EMA- and retro-GHABP. Results For the EMA-GHABP, HA2 had significantly higher (better) scores than HA1 in the GHABP subscales of benefit, residual disability, and satisfaction (p = 0.029–0.0015). In contrast, the difference in the retro-GHABP score between HA1 and HA2 was significant only in the satisfaction subscale (p = 0.0004). The correlations between the EMA- and retro-GHABP were significant in all subscales (p = 0.0004 to <0.0001). The strength of the association ranged from weak to moderate (r = 0.28–0.58). Finally, the exit interview indicated that 29 participants (74.4%) preferred HA2 over HA1. Conclusion The study suggests that in-situ self-reports collected using EMA could have a higher sensitivity than retrospective questionnaires. Therefore, EMA is worth considering in clinical trials that aim to compare the outcomes of different hearing aid technologies. The weak to moderate association between in-situ and retrospective self-reports suggests that these two types of measures assess different aspects of hearing aid outcomes.

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.

Hearing Specific and Generic Measures of the Psychosocial Impact of Hearing Aids

2004 ◽  
Vol 15 (03) ◽  
pp. 238-248 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gabrielle H. Saunders ◽  
Jeffrey W. Jutai
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Relative Sensitivity ◽  
Psychosocial Impact ◽  
Assistive Devices ◽  
Hearing Aid Use ◽  
One Year ◽  
Generic Measures ◽  
Hearing Aid Benefit ◽  
The Relationship

Hearing-specific and generic measures of hearing aid outcome were examined in order (a) to determine their relative sensitivity to hearing aid use and (b) to examine the relationship between pre–hearing aid use expectations and post-use outcomes. Ninety-two hearing-impaired individuals completed some combination of the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit, Expected Consequences of Hearing Aid Ownership (ECHO), Satisfaction with Amplification in Daily Life (SADL), and Psychosocial Impact of Assistive Devices Scale, and provided reports of their daily and lifetime hearing aid use. In general, (a) the longer individuals wear hearing aids, the more positive the reported outcome, and (b) ECHO scores of non–hearing aid users are higher than SADL scores of new hearing aid users (six weeks to one year of use) but are similar to those obtained from experienced users (greater than one year of use). Between-questionnaire comparisons showed the generic measure to be as sensitive as the hearing aid specific measures. We suggest that generic measures have some advantages over hearing specific measures but that each has a place in the clinic.

Benefit From, Satisfaction With, and Cost-Effectiveness of Three Different Hearing Aid Technologies

1998 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 115-128 ◽  
Author(s):  
Craig W. Newman ◽  
Sharon A. Sandridge
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Present Report ◽  
Digital Signal ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
The Elderly ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Effectiveness Model ◽  
Hearing Aid Benefit

Clinical decision-making has become more complex as newer, more costly, hearing aid (HA) technologies become available. The expanding array of more expensive HAs demands that clinical researchers continue to justify the value of these instruments relative to the substantial increase in cost to both the provider and consumer. In the present report, 25 current conventional HA users with adult onset of sensorineural hearing loss were fitted with: (a) a one-channel linear HA; (b) a two-channel, nonlinear HA; and (c) a seven-band, two-channel digital signal processing (DSP) HA. All instruments were mini behind-the-ear units with identifying information removed from the cases. Subjects wore each HA for at least a 1-month period. A set of laboratory (Speech Perception in Noise [SPIN] test; audibility index calculated from real-ear measurements) and self-report (Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit; Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly/Adults; Knowles Hearing Aid Satisfaction Survey; preference ratings) outcome measures were used to evaluate the benefit from, satisfaction with, and cost-effectiveness of each test HA. As expected, there were statistically significant differences between unaided and aided conditions across HAs. Although the DSP instrument yielded significantly higher word recognition scores on the SPIN test, no differences were observed among the test HAs for the standardized self-report measures. In contrast, however, more than 75% of the subjects preferred the “higher end” instruments. Yet, 33% of the subjects changed their preference for the “higher end” instruments after being informed of costs. A cost-effectiveness model for evaluating the relationship between HA retail purchase price and improvements in performance/benefit is presented.

scholarly journals Development of the Device-Oriented Subjective Outcome (DOSO) Scale

2014 ◽  
Vol 25 (08) ◽  
pp. 727-736 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robyn M. Cox ◽  
Genevieve C. Alexander ◽  
Jingjing Xu
Keyword(s):  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Short Form ◽  
Principal Component ◽  
Field Trials ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Subjective Outcome ◽  
Personality Variables ◽  
Item Statistics

Background: The empiric basis for this work is derived from previous research completed in our laboratory and published in 2005 and 2007. The previous work suggested that self-report hearing aid outcomes can be viewed as device oriented or wearer oriented. Furthermore, compared with wearer-oriented outcomes, device-oriented outcomes were more independent of personality variables. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to develop a device-oriented questionnaire to measure self-report hearing aid outcomes. Research Design: Design was a descriptive study in which 140 potential questionnaire items were evaluated and a questionnaire was devised. Study Sample: A total of 306 adult hearing aid wearers participated: 189 were clinical patients and 117 were participants in hearing aid field trials. Data Collection and Analysis: Some items and some participants were removed because of insufficient responses. The final dataset included 295 participants and 66 items. Response data were subjected to exploratory principal component analysis with orthogonal rotation. Six components, explaining 64% of the variance, were retained. Item statistics were examined. Results: Six subscales were identified. Long and short forms of the questionnaire were developed. There are two equivalent versions of the short form. Conclusions: The Device-Oriented Subjective Outcome (DOSO) questionnaire is suitable for quantifying subjective hearing aid outcomes in both research and clinical settings. The DOSO is especially suited for comparing outcomes with different hearing aids. Future research is needed to cross-validate the results, determine retest consistency, and to explore the extent to which data from the DOSO is independent of personality.

The Impact of Providers on Consumer Satisfaction and Price in Hearing Aid Purchases

1989 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 81-92
Author(s):  
Thomas J. Maronick ◽  
Sandra E. Gleason ◽  
M. Ronald Stiff
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Consumer Satisfaction ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
The Elderly ◽  
The Past ◽  
Level Of Training ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Relationship

A consumer mail panel was used to locate persons who had purchased a hearing aid within the past two years in order to determine the relationship between price paid, and overall satisfaction as a function of use by a physician, an audiologist, or a dealer as the provider to services related to the purchase. A total of 874 consumers, 78 percent of whom were over age 60, completed the written questionnaire. Overall, 83 percent of the survey respondents were satisfied with their most recent hearing aid purchase. Those who consulted a physician for a medical exam prior to being fitted for and purchasing a hearing aid were slightly more satisfied than those who did not consult a physician (85 percent versus 80 percent). Consumers were most satisfied when they were fitted for and bought their hearing aid from an audiologist. The least satisfied respondents were those consumers who used hearing aid dealers or salespersons rather than physicians or audiologists. The most expensive hearing aids were sold by the least well trained providers, hearing aid dealers and salespersons. Herein, implications for public policy in terms of access to hearing aids by the elderly and level of training are discussed.

An Examination of Changes in Hearing-Aid Performance and Benefit in the Elderly Over a 3-Year Period of Hearing-Aid Use

2003 ◽  
Vol 46 (1) ◽  
pp. 137-145 ◽  
Author(s):  
Larry E. Humes ◽  
Dana L. Wilson
Keyword(s):  
Signal To Noise Ratio ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
The Elderly ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Hearing Aid Use ◽  
Systematic Improvement ◽  
Measurement Protocol ◽  
Hearing Handicap ◽  
Standardized Measurement ◽  
Hearing Aid Benefit

This brief report describes the changes in hearing-aid performance and benefit in 9 elderly hearing-aid wearers over a 3-year period following the hearing-aid fitting. Objective measures of hearing-aid performance included three measures of speech recognition: (a) the Nonsense Syllable Test (NST) presented at 65 dB SPL and a +8 dB signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), (b) the Connected Speech Test (CST) presented at 50 dB SPL in quiet, and (c) the CST presented at 65 dB SPL and a +8 dB SNR. Subjective, self-report measures of hearing-aid benefit included the Hearing Aid Performance Inventory (HAPI; B. E. Walden, M. E. Demorest, & E. L. Helper, 1984) and the Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly (HHIE; I. Ventry & B. Weinstein, 1982). Performance and benefit measures were obtained at postfit intervals of 1 month, 6 months, 1 year, 2 years, and 3 years using a standardized measurement protocol. Individual data were evaluated using 95% critical differences established previously for each benefit measure and applied around the scores observed at the 1-month postfit interval. Little evidence was seen for systematic improvement in aided performance or benefit, consistent with that expected from acclimatization, in any participant or for any measure of benefit.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document