Case-study analysis of various field study measures.

The purpose of this study was to measure the reliability, sensitivity and validity of two types of field study measures: subjective rating techniques and self-assessment scales. Eight listeners with hearing loss served as subjects. In a laboratory study two Frequency-Gain-Characteristics (FGCs) were selected; one which subjects rated as having better speech clarity and one which subjects rated as having poorer speech clarity. The clarity ratings for the two FGCs were the criterion measure to which the results of the field studies were compared. Subjects wore each of the two FGCs in the real world for six, one-week time periods. During each week subjects completed either category ratings or paired comparisons. Two self-assessment scales were also completed. The paired comparison technique was the field study measure with the best psychometric characteristics.

[1]  E. Owens,et al.  Development of the California Consonant Test. , 1977, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[2]  R K Surr,et al.  Comparison of Linear and K‐Amp™ Circuits , 1997, Ear and hearing.

[3]  R M Cox,et al.  Predictability and reliability of hearing aid benefit measured using the PHAB. , 1992, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[4]  Brian E. Walden.  Toward a Model Clinical-Trials Protocol for Substantiating Hearing Aid User-Benefit Claims , 1997 .

[5]  H Levitt,et al.  An Examination of the Practicality of the Simplex Procedure , 2000, Ear and hearing.

[6]  Craig W Newman,et al.  Benefit From, Satisfaction With, and Cost-Effectiveness of Three Different Hearing Aid Technologies. , 1998, American journal of audiology.

[7]  H. Dillon,et al.  The National Acoustic Laboratories' (NAL) New Procedure for Selecting the Gain and Frequency Response of a Hearing Aid , 1986, Ear and hearing.

[8]  D A Fabry,et al.  Comparing the performance of the Widex SENSO digital hearing aid with analog hearing aids. , 1998, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[9]  D J Van Tasell,et al.  Quantifying the relation between speech quality and speech intelligibility. , 1995, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[10]  D D Dirks,et al.  Reliability and sensitivity of paired comparisons and category rating in children. , 1995, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[11]  R M Cox,et al.  Intelligibility ratings of continuous discourse: application to hearing aid selection. , 1984, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[12]  B Hagerman,et al.  The effects of different frequency responses on sound quality judgments and speech intelligibility. , 1988, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[13]  R. Margolis,et al.  Comparison of clinical and real-life judgments of loudness discomfort. , 1992, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[14]  L. Humes,et al.  Reliability and stability of various hearing-aid outcome measures in a group of elderly hearing-aid wearers. , 1996, Journal of speech and hearing research.

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

[16]  A Ringdahl,et al.  Sound quality and speech reception for prescribed hearing aid frequency responses. , 1991, Ear and hearing.

[17]  L G Potts,et al.  Differences in performance between Oticon MultiFocus Compact and ReSound BT2-E hearing aids. , 1997, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[18]  D Byrne,et al.  Evaluation of the National Acoustic Laboratories' new hearing aid selection procedure. , 1988, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[19]  A. Thornton,et al.  Speech-discrimination scores modeled as a binomial variable. , 1978, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[20]  B Hagerman,et al.  Perceived sound quality of reproductions with different frequency responses and sound levels. , 1990, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[21]  D D Dirks,et al.  Articulation index predictions of contextually dependent words. , 1986, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[22]  B Hagerman,et al.  Questionnaires on desirable properties of hearing aids. , 1985, Scandinavian audiology.

[23]  C Speaks,et al.  Intelligibility of connected discourse. , 1972, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[24]  F H Bess,et al.  A comparison of the benefit provided by well-fit linear hearing aids and instruments with automatic reductions of low-frequency gain. , 1997, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[25]  F K Kuk,et al.  Relative satisfaction for frequency responses selected with a simplex procedure in different listening conditions. , 1993, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[26]  H. Dillon,et al.  Client Oriented Scale of Improvement (COSI) and its relationship to several other measures of benefit and satisfaction provided by hearing aids. , 1997, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[27]  D D Dirks,et al.  Subjective Judgments of Speech Clarity Measured by Paired Comparisons and Category Rating , 1997, Ear and hearing.

[28]  C V Pavlovic,et al.  Reliability, sensitivity and validity of magnitude estimation, category scaling and paired-comparison judgements of speech intelligibility by older listeners. , 1992, Audiology : official organ of the International Society of Audiology.

[29]  Filion Pr,et al.  Comparison of clinical and real-life judgments of loudness discomfort. , 1992 .

[30]  B C Moore,et al.  Comparison of different forms of compression using wearable digital hearing aids. , 1999, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[31]  H. Levitt,et al.  Paired comparison judgments for hearing aid selection in children. , 1991, Ear and hearing.

[32]  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.

[33]  J L Punch,et al.  Low-frequency response of hearing aids and judgments of aided speech quality. , 1980, The Journal of speech and hearing disorders.