Short-term and long-term hearing aid benefit and user satisfaction: a comparison between two fitting protocols.

Currently published hearing aid fitting protocols recommend speech-in-noise testing and loudness measures, but it remains unclear how these measures affect hearing aid benefit and user satisfaction. This study compared two protocols in their effects on benefit and satisfaction. Protocol A included an electroacoustic analysis, real-ear measures, and hearing aid adjustments based on users' comments. Protocol B included all of Protocol A and a speech-in-noise test, loudness discomfort levels, and aided loudness. Thirty-two participants completed the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) and the Satisfaction with Amplification in Daily Life (SADL) at 45 days and three months post-initial fitting. Fewer hearing aid adjustments were made to the hearing aids for participants fitted with Protocol B than participants fitted with Protocol A, but final gains were similar for both groups. Although similar APHAB scores were obtained for both protocols, SADL scores decreased between 45 days and three months for Protocol A.

[1]  Nihon Jibiinkōka Gakkai,et al.  Auris nasus larynx , 1974 .

[2]  Robyn M. Cox,et al.  Development of the Connected Speech Test (CST) , 1987, Ear and hearing.

[3]  B E Walden,et al.  Description and validation of an LDL procedure designed to select SSPL90. , 1987, Ear and hearing.

[4]  S. Lesner,et al.  Expectations of older adults regarding the use of hearing aids. , 1991, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[5]  H. Dillon,et al.  Rehabilitation effectiveness II: Assessing the outcomes for clients of a national hearing rehabilitation program , 1991 .

[6]  Hawkins Db,et al.  Comparison of SSPL90 selection procedures. , 1992 .

[7]  W. A. Cooper,et al.  Comparison of SSPL90 selection procedures. , 1992, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[8]  S Gatehouse,et al.  Components and Determinants of Hearing Aid Benefit , 1994, Ear and hearing.

[9]  S. Soli,et al.  Development of the Hearing in Noise Test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise. , 1994, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[10]  Robyn M. Cox,et al.  The Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit , 1995 .

[11]  R C Seewald,et al.  The input/output formula: a theoretical approach to the fitting of personal amplification devices. , 1995, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[12]  Robyn M. Cox,et al.  The Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit , 1995, Ear and hearing.

[13]  Michael Valente,et al.  The Independent Hearing Aid Fitting Forum (IHAFF) Protocol , 1997, Trends in amplification.

[14]  K J Munro,et al.  Are clinical measurements of uncomfortable loudness levels a valid indicator of real-world auditory discomfort? , 1998, British journal of audiology.

[15]  Ruth A. Bentler,et al.  Guidelines for hearing aid fitting for adults , 1998 .

[16]  R M Cox,et al.  Measuring Satisfaction with Amplification in Daily Life: the SADL scale. , 1999, Ear and hearing.

[17]  L E Humes.  Dimensions of hearing aid outcome. , 1999, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[18]  T C Liu,et al.  Loudness discomfort levels in patients with conductive and mixed hearing loss. , 2000, Auris, nasus, larynx.

[19]  L. Beck.  The Role of Outcomes Data in Health‐Care Resource Allocation , 2000, Ear and hearing.

[20]  D. R. Cunningham,et al.  Effects of providing and withholding postfitting fine-tuning adjustments on outcome measures in novice hearing aid users: a pilot study. , 2001, American journal of audiology.

[21]  D. R. Cunningham,et al.  Effects of providing and withholding postfitting fine-tuning adjustments on outcome measures in novice hearing aid users: a pilot study. , 2001, American journal of audiology.

[22]  R A Bentler,et al.  An Examination of Several Characteristics that Affect the Prediction of OSPL90 in Hearing Aids , 2001, Ear and hearing.

[23]  Coupler and Real-Ear Measurement of Hearing Aid Gain and Output in the NIDCD/VA Hearing Aid Clinical Trial , 2002, Ear and hearing.

[24]  Gitte Keidser,et al.  Proprietary fitting algorithms compared with one another and with generic formulas , 2003 .

[25]  Stig Arlinger,et al.  Negative consequences of uncorrected hearing loss—a review , 2003, International journal of audiology.

[26]  H. Gustav Mueller.  In the words of Shakespeare: Fitting test protocols are “more honored in the breach than the observance” , 2003 .

[27]  David B. Hawkins,et al.  Hearing aid software predictive gain values: How accurate are they? , 2003 .

[28]  Brian Taylor.  Speech‐in‐noise tests: How and why to include them in your basic test battery , 2003 .

[29]  M. Killion,et al.  Development of a quick speech-in-noise test for measuring signal-to-noise ratio loss in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. , 2004, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[30]  R. Bentler,et al.  Fitting hearing aids using clinical measures of loudness discomfort levels: an evidence-based review of effectiveness. , 2005, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[31]  M. Killion,et al.  Fitting hearing aids using clinical prefitting speech measures: an evidence-based review. , 2005, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[32]  Robyn M. Cox,et al.  Who Wants a Hearing Aid? Personality Profiles of Hearing Aid Seekers , 2005, Ear and hearing.

[33]  Sheila Moodie,et al.  The Desired Sensation Level Multistage Input/Output Algorithm , 2005, Trends in amplification.

[34]  Mead C Killion,et al.  Homogeneity of the 18 QuickSIN lists. , 2006, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[35]  David H. Kirkwood,et al.  Survey: Dispensers fitted more hearing aids in 2005 at higher prices , 2006 .