Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Hearing Aid Validation

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Hearing Aids

Part of the book series: Springer Handbook of Auditory Research ((SHAR,volume 56))

Abstract

Validation provides quality assurance that a hearing aid wearer’s needs are being met—that the solution meets not only their technical requirements (i.e., verification) but also their requirements for everyday communication. In the past 50 years, there have been repeated calls for better measures of hearing aid performance, with a general shift in validation toward the self-report of hearing, communication, and well-being through questionnaires. This chapter looks at these measures, examining the domains of hearing aid validation and how despite the growth in number of questions—a total of more than 1,000 questions on hearing aids—the domains have evolved only slightly. The chapter then considers the ways in which a fundamental domain, “benefit,” is calculated. A large data set shows how different forms of benefit can lead to different systematic interpretations. While most objective measures for hearing aids are by definition verifications, the chapter discusses those objective measurements that approach validation by attempting to mimic aspects of everyday communication. The issues raised by these myriad forms of validation suggest that a viable measure of hearing aid benefit must incorporate measures of expectations and burdens for listener-specific conditions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Akeroyd, M. A., Guy, F. H., Harrison, D. L., & Suller, S. L. (2014). A factor analysis of the SSQ (Speech, Spatial, and Qualities of Hearing Scale). International Journal of Audiology, 53, 101–114.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Barcham, L. J., & Stephens, S. D. (1980). The use of an open-ended problems questionnaire in auditory rehabilitation. British Journal of Audiology, 14, 51–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bentler, R. A., & Kramer, S. E. (2000). Guidelines for choosing a self-report outcome measure. Ear and Hearing, 21, 37S–49S.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bentler, R. A., Niebuhr, D. P., Getta, J. P., & Anderson, C. V. (1993). Longitudinal study of hearing aid effectiveness, II: Subjective measures. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 36, 820–831.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Boothroyd, A., Hnath-Chisolm, T., Hanin, L., & Kishon-Rabin, L. (1988). Voice fundamental frequency as an auditory supplement to the speechreading of sentences. Ear and Hearing, 9, 306–312.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, D. N. (1989). The effect of attitude on benefit obtained from hearing aids. British Journal of Audiology, 23, 3–11.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Carhart, R. (1965). Problems in the measurement of speech discrimination. Archives of Otolaryngology, 82, 253–260.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chermak, G. D., & Miller, M. C. (1988). Shortcomings of a revised feasibility scale for predicting hearing aid use with older adults. British Journal of Audiology, 22, 187–194.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cherry, E. C. (1953). Some experiments on the recognition of speech, with one and two ears. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 25, 975–979.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chung, S., & Stephens, S. D. G. (1986). Factors influencing binaural hearing aid use. British Journal of Audiology, 20, 129–140.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Compton-Conley, C. L., Neuman, A. C., Killion, M. C., & Levitt, H. (2004). Performance of directional microphones for hearing aids: Real-world versus simulation. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 15, 440–445.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cox, R. M. (1999). Measuring hearing aid outcomes: Part 1 (Editorial). Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 10, i–ii.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cox, R. M. (2005). Choosing a self-report measure for hearing aid fitting outcomes. Seminars in Hearing, 26, 149–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cox, R. M., & McDaniel, D. M. (1989). Development of the speech intelligibility rating (SIR) test for hearing aid comparisons. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 32, 347–352.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cox, R. M., & Gilmore, C. (1990). Development of the profile of hearing aid performance (PHAP). Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 33, 343–357.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cox, R. M., & Alexander, G. C. (1992). Maturation of hearing aid benefit: Objective and subjective measurements. Ear and Hearing, 13, 131–141.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cox, R. M., & Alexander, G. C. (1995). The abbreviated profile of hearing aid benefit. Ear and Hearing, 16, 176–186.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cox, R. M., & Alexander, G. C. (1999). Measuring satisfaction with amplification in daily life: The SADL scale. Ear and Hearing, 20, 306–320.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cox, R. M., Alexander, G. C., Gilmore, C., & Pusakulich, K. M. (1989). The connected speech test version 3: Audiovisual administration. Ear and Hearing, 10, 29–32.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cox, R. M., Alexander, G. C., & Rivera, I. M. (1991a). Comparison of objective and subjective measures of speech intelligibility in elderly hearing-impaired listeners. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 34, 904–915.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cox, R. M., Gilmore, C., & Alexander, G. C. (1991b). Comparison of two questionnaires for patient-assessed hearing aid benefit. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 2, 134–145.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cox, R. M., Hyde, M., Gatehouse, S., Noble, W., Dillon, H., et al. (2000). Optimal outcome measures, research priorities, and international cooperation. Ear and Hearing, 21, 106S–115S.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cox, R. M., Alexander, G. C., & Gray, G. A. (2007). Personality, hearing problems, and amplification characteristics: Contributions to self-report hearing aid outcomes. Ear and Hearing, 28, 141–162.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cox, R. M., Schwartz, K. S., Noe, C. M., & Alexander, G. C. (2011). Preference for one or two hearing aids among adult patients. Ear and Hearing, 32, 181–197.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Cox, R. M., Alexander, G. C., & Xu, J. (2014). Development of the device-oriented subjective outcome (DOSO) scale. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 25, 727–736. (Available online as of 2009: http://www.harlmemphis.org/index.php/clinical-applications/doso/)

  • Danermark, B., Cieza, A., Gangé, J. P., Gimigliano, F., Granberg, S., et al. (2010). International classification of functioning, disability and health core sets for hearing loss: A discussion paper and invitation. International Journal of Audiology, 49, 256–262.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, A. C. (1983) Hearing disorders in the population: First phase findings of the MRC National Study of Hearing. In M. E. Lutman & M. P. Haggard (Eds.), Hearing science and disorders (pp. 35-60). Academic Press, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, A., Smith, P., Ferguson, M., Stephens, D., & Gianopoulos, I. (2007). Acceptability, benefit and costs of early screening for hearing disability: A study of potential screening tests and models. Health Technology Assessment, 11, 1–472.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Demorest, M. E. (1984). Techniques for measuring hearing aid benefit through self-report. In J. Pickett (Chair), Symposium on hearing technology: Its present and future (pp. 1–19). Washington, DC: Gallaudet College.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillon, H. (1994). Shortened hearing aid performance inventory for the elderly (SHAPIE): A statistical approach. Australian Journal of Audiology, 16, 37–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillon, H., James, A., & Ginnis, J. (1997). Client oriented scale of improvement (COSI) and its relationship to several other measures of benefit and satisfaction provided by hearing aids. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 8, 27–43.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dittberner, A., & Bentler, R. (2003). Interpreting the Directivity Index (DI). Hearing Review, 10, 16–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erber, N. (1992). Effects of a question-answer format on visual perception of sentences. Journal of Academy of Audiologic Rehabilitation, 25, 113–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • EuroQOL Group. (1990). EuroQol—a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy, 16, 199–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ewertsen, H. W., & Nielsen, H. B. (1971). A comparative analysis of the audiovisual, auditive and visual perception of speech. Acta Oto-Laryngologica, 72, 201–205.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Freyaldhoven, M. C., Nabelek, A. K., Burchfield, S. B., & Thelin, J. W. (2005). Acceptable noise level as a measure of directional hearing aid benefit. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 16, 228–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forster, S., & Tomlin, A. (1988). Hearing aid usage in Queensland. Paper presented at the Audiological Society of Australia Conference, Perth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Furlong, W. J., Feeny, D. H., Torrance, G. W., & Barr, R. D. (2001). The Health Utilities Index (HUI) system for assessing health-related quality of life in clinical studies. Annals of Medicine, 33, 375–384.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gatehouse, S. (1993). Hearing aid evaluation: Limitations of present procedures and future requirements. Journal of Speech Language Pathology and Audiology Monograph (Suppl. 1), 50–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gatehouse, S. (1999). Glasgow hearing aid benefit profile: Derivation and validation of a client-centered outcome measure for hearing aid services. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 10, 80–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gatehouse, S., & Noble, W. (2004). The speech, spatial and qualities of hearing scale (SSQ). International Journal of Audiology, 43, 85–99.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Giolas, T. G., Owens, E., Lamb, S. H., & Schubert, E. D. (1979). Hearing performance inventory. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 44, 169–195.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Granberg, S., Möller, K., Skagerstand, Å., Möller, C., & Danermark, B. (2014). The ICF Core Sets for hearing loss: Researcher perspective, part II: Linking outcome measures to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). International Journal of Audiology, 53, 77–87.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hafter, E. R., Xia, J., & Kalluri, S. (2012). A naturalistic approach to the cocktail party problem. In B. Moore, R. Patterson, I. Winter, R. Carlyon, & H. Gockel (Eds.), Basic aspects of hearing: Physiology and perception (pp. 527–534). New York: Springer Science + Business Media.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haggard, M. P., Foster, J. R., & Iredale, F. E. (1981). Use and benefit of post-aural aids in sensory hearing loss. Scandinavian Audiology, 10, 45–52.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hallam, R. S., & Brooks, D. N. (1996). Development of the hearing attitudes in rehabilitation questionnaire (HARQ). British Journal of Audiology, 30, 199–213.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hawkins, D. B. (1985). Reflections on amplification: Validation of performance. Journal of the Academy of Rehabilitative Audiology, 18, 42–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • High, W. S., Fairbanks, G., & Glorig, A. (1964). Scale for self-assessment of hearing handicap. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 29, 215–230.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ho, H. C., Wu, Y. H., Hsiao, S. H., & Zhang, X. (2013). Acceptable noise level (ANL) and real-world hearing-aid success in Taiwanese listeners. International Journal of Audiology, 52, 762–770.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Humes, L. E., Garner, C. B., Wilson, D. L., & Barlow, N. N. (2001). Hearing-aid outcome measures following one month of hearing aid use by the elderly. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research, 44, 469–486.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hutton, C. L. (1980). Responses to a Hearing Problem Inventory. Journal of the Academy of Rehabilitation Audiology, 13, 133–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ivory, P. J., Hendricks, B. L., Van Vliet, D., Beyer, C. M., & Abrams, H. B. (2009). Short-term hearing aid benefit in a large group. Trends in Amplification, 13, 260–280.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, H., Bally, S., & Brandt, F. (1995). Revised Communication Self-Assessment Scale Inventory for Deaf Adults (CSDA). Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 6, 311–329.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, H., Bally, S., Brandt, F., Busacco, D., & Pray, J. (1997). Communication Scale for Older Adults (CSOA). Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 8, 203–217.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kochkin, S. (1997). Subjective measures of satisfaction and benefit: Establishing norms. Seminars in Hearing, 18, 37–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kompis, M., Pfiffner, F., Krebs, M., & Caversaccio, M. D. (2011). Factors influencing the decision for Baha in unilateral deafness: The Bern benefit in single-sided deafness questionnaire. Advances in Otorhinolaryngology, 71, 103–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laplante-Lévesque, A., Hickson, L., & Worrall, L. (2010). Factors influencing rehabilitation decisions of adults with acquired hearing impairment. International Journal of Audiology, 49, 497–507.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Laugesen, S., Jensen, N. S., Maas, P., & Nielsen, C. (2011). Own voice qualities (OVQ) in hearing-aid users: There is more than just occlusion. International Journal of Audiology, 50, 226–236.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Macleod, A., & Summerfield, Q. (1990). A procedure for measuring auditory and audio-visual speech-reception thresholds for sentences in noise. British Journal of Audiology, 24, 29–43.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • MacPherson, A., & Akeroyd, M. A. (2013). The Glasgow Monitoring of Uninterrupted Speech Task (GMUST): A naturalistic measure of speech intelligibility in noise. Proceedings of Meetings on Acoustics, 19, 050068.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacPherson, A., & Akeroyd, M. A. (2014). A method for measuring the intelligibility of uninterrupted, continuous speech (L). The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 135, 1027–1030.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Manzella, D., & Taigman, M. (1980). A hearing screening test for the elderly. Journal of the Academy of Rehabilitative Audiology, 13, 21–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • McArdle, R., Chisolm, T. H., Abrams, H. B., Wilson, R. H., & Doyle, P. J. (2005). The WHO-DAS II: Measuring outcomes of hearing intervention for adults. Trends in Amplification, 9, 127–143.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • McCormack, A., & Fortnum, H. (2013). Why do people with hearing aids not wear them? International Journal of Audiology, 52, 360–368.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • McDaniel, D. M., & Cox, R. M. (1992). Evaluation of the speech intelligibility rating (SIR) test for hearing aid comparisons. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 35, 686–693.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McDermott, A. L., Dutt, S. N., Tziambazis, E., Reid, A. P., & Proops, D. W. (2002). Disability, handicap and benefit analysis with the bone-anchored hearing aid: The Glasgow hearing aid benefit and difference profiles. Journal of Laryngology and Otology, 116 (Suppl. 28), 29–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • McShefferty, D., Whitmer, W. M., & Akeroyd, M. A. (2015). The just-noticeable difference in speech-to-noise ratio. Trends in Hearing, 19, 1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meister, H., Lausberg, I., Walger, M. & von Wedel, H. (2001). Using conjoint analysis to examine the importance of hearing aid attributes. Ear and Hearing, 22, 142–150.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Meister, H., Lausberg, I., Kiessling, J., von Wedel, H., & Walger, M. (2005). Detecting components of hearing aid fitting using a self-assessment inventory. European Archives in Otorhinolaryngology, 262, 580–586.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mendel, L. L. (2007). Objective and subjective hearing aid assessment outcomes. American Journal of Audiology, 16, 118–129.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mokkink, L. B., Terwee, C. B., Patrick, D. L., Alonso, J., Stratford, P. W., et al. (2010). The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: An international Delphi study. Quality of Life Research, 19, 539–549.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Morris, A. E., Lutman, M. E., Cook, A. J., & Turner, D. (2013). An economic evaluation of screening 60- to 70-year-old adults for hearing loss. Journal of Public Health, 35, 139–146.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mueller, H. G., & Palmer, C. V. (1998). The profile of aided loudness: A new “PAL” for ‘98. Hearing Journal, 51, 10–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mueller, H. G., Weber, J., & Hornsby, B. W. Y. (2006). The effects of digital noise reduction on the acceptance of background noise. Trends in Amplification, 10, 83–94.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Nabelek, A. K., Tuckler, F. M., & Letwoski, T. R. (1991). Toleration of background noises: Relationships with patterns of hearing aid use by elderly persons. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 34, 679–685.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nabelek, A. K., Freyaldhoven, M. C., Tampas, J. W., Burchfield, S. B., & Muenchen, R. A. (2006). Acceptable noise level as a predictor of hearing aid use. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 17, 626–639.

    Google Scholar 

  • Naylor, G. (2005). The search for the Panacea hearing aid. In A. Rasmussen, T. Poulsen, T. Andersen, & C. Larsen (Eds.), Hearing aid fitting: Proceedings of the 21st Danavox Symposium (pp. 321–344). Copenhagen: Danavox Jubilee Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newman, C. W., & Weinstein, B. E. (1988). The hearing handicap inventory for the elderly as a measure of hearing aid benefit. Ear and Hearing, 9, 81–85.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nilsson, M., Soli, S. D., & Sullivan, J. A. (1994). Development of the hearing in noise test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 95, 1085–1099.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Noble, W., & Gatehouse, S. (2006). Effects of bilateral versus unilateral hearing aid fitting on abilities measured by the speech, spatial, and qualities of hearing scale (SSQ). International Journal of Audiology, 45, 172–181.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noble, W., Ter-Horst, K., & Byrne, D. (1995). Disabilities and handicaps associated with impaired auditory localisation. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 6, 129–140.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Noble, W., Jensen, N. S., Naylor, G., Bhullar, N., & Akeroyd, M. A. (2013). A short form of the Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale suitable for clinical use: The SSQ12. International Journal of Audiology, 52, 409–412.

    Google Scholar 

  • Öberg, M., Wänström, G., Hjertman, H., Lunner, T., & Andersson, G. (2009). Development and initial validation of the ‘Clinical global impression’ to measure outcomes for audiological rehabilitation. Disability and Rehabilitation, 31, 1409–1417.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Olsen, S. Ø., & Brännström, K. J. (2014). Does the acceptable noise level (ANL) predict hearing-aid use? International Journal of Audiology, 53, 2–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Owens, E., & Fujikawa, S. (1980). The hearing performance inventory and hearing aid use in profound hearing loss. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 23, 470–479.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Perez, E., & Edmonds, B. A. (2012). A systematic review of studies measuring and reporting hearing aid usage in older adults since 1999: A descriptive summary of measurement tools. PLoS ONE, 7(3), e31831.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Purdy, S. C., & Jerram, J. C. K., (1998). Investigation of the profile of hearing aid performance in experienced hearing aid users. Ear and Hearing, 19, 473–480.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, K., Gatehouse, S., & Browning, G. G. (1996). Measuring patient benefit from otorhinolaryngological surgery and therapy. Annals of Otology, Rhinology and Laryngology, 105, 415–422.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rupp, R. R., Higgins, J., & Maurer, J. F. (1977). A feasibility scale for predicting hearing aid use (FSPHAU) with older individuals. Journal of the Academy of Rehabilitative Audiology, 10, 81–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saunders, G. H., & Cienkowski, K. M. (1996). Refinement and psychometric evaluation of the attitudes toward loss of hearing questionnaire. Ear and Hearing, 17, 505–519.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Saunders, G. H., & Kates, J. M. (1997). Speech intelligibility enhancement using hearing-aid array processing. The Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 102, 1827–1837.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Saunders, G. H., & Cienkowski, K. M. (2002). A test to measure subjective and objective speech intelligibility. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 13, 38–49.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Saunders, G. H., & Forsline, A. (2006). The performance-perceptual test (PPT) and its relationship to aided reported handicap and hearing aid satisfaction. Ear and Hearing, 27, 229–242.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Saunders, G. H., Lewis, M. S., & Forsline, A. (2009). Expectations, prefitting counselling, and hearing aid outcome. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 20, 320–334.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schein, J. D., Gentile, A., & Haase, K. (1965). Methodological aspects of a hearing ability interview survey. Vital and health statistics, Series 2, Report 12, Rockville, MD: US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schein, J. D., Gentile, A., & Haase, K. (1970). Development and evaluation of an Expanded Hearing Loss Scale Questionnaire. Vital and health statistics, Series 2, Report 37, Rockville, MD: US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schow, R. L., & Nerbonne, M. A. (1982). Communication screening profile: Use with elderly clients. Ear and Hearing, 3, 135–147.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schum, D. J. (1992). Responses of elderly hearing aid users on the Hearing Aid Performance Inventory. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 3, 308–314.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schum, D. J. (1999). Perceived hearing aid benefit in relation to perceived needs. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 10, 40–45.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Seyfried, D. N. (1990). Use of a communication self-report inventory to measure hearing aid counselling effects. PhD dissertation, University of Iowa.

    Google Scholar 

  • Speaks, C., Parker, B., Harris, C., & Kuhl, P. (1972). Intelligibility of connected discourse. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 15, 590–602.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Speaks, C., Trine, T., Crain, T., & Niccum, N. (1994). A revised speech intelligibility (RSIR) test: Listeners with normal hearing. Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, 110, 75–83.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stephens, S. D. (1980). Evaluating the problems of the hearing impaired. Audiology, 19, 205–220.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, D. O., & DeMarco, J. P. (2005). An economic theory of patient decision-making. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, 2, 153–164.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, D. O., & DeMarco, J. P. (2010). Rational noncompliance with prescribed medical treatment. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 20, 277–290.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sumby, W., & Pollack, I. (1954). Visual contribution to speech intelligibility in noise. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 26, 212–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Surr, R. K., & Hawkins, D. B. (1988). New hearing aid users’ perception of the “hearing aid effect.” Ear and Hearing, 9, 113–118.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Swan, I. R. C., Guy, F. H., & Akeroyd, M. A. (2012). Health-related quality of life before and after management in adults referred to otolaryngology: A prospective national study. Clinical Otolaryngology, 37, 35–43.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Tannahill, J. C. (1979). The hearing handicap scale as a measure of hearing aid benefit. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 44, 91–99.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, K. S. (1993). Self-perceived and audiometric evaluations of hearing aid benefit in the elderly. Ear and Hearing, 14, 390–394.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tobin, H., Baquet, G. M., & Koslowski, J. A. (1997). Evaluation procedures. In H. Tobin (Ed.), Practical hearing aid selection and fitting (pp. 95–102). Baltimore, MD: US Department of Veteran Affairs.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trainor, L., Sonnadara, R., Wiklund, K., Bondy, J., Gupta, S., Becker, S., Bruce, I., & Haykin, S. (2004). Development of a flexible, realistic hearing in noise test environment (R-HINT-E). Signal Processing, 84, 299–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tye-Murray, N., Witt, S., & Castelloe, J. (1996). Initial evaluation of an interactive test of sentence gist recognition. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 7, 396–405.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tye-Murray, N., Sommers, M., Spehar, B., Myerson, J., Hale, S., et al. (2008). Auditory-visual discourse comprehension by older and young adults in favourable and unfavourable conditions. International Journal of Audiology, 47, S31–S37.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Uriarte, M., Denzin, L., Dunstan, A., & Hickson, L. (2005). Measuring hearing aid outcome using the satisfaction with amplification in daily life (SADL) questionnaire: Australian data. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 16, 383–402.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ventry, I. M. & Weintstein, B. E. (1982). The Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly: A new tool. Ear and Hearing, 3, 128–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vestergaard, M. D. (2004). Benefit from amplification of high frequencies in hearing impaired: Aspects of cochlear dead regions and auditory acclimatization. PhD thesis, Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vuorialho, A., Karinen, P., & Sorri, M. (2006). Effect of hearing aids on hearing disability and quality of life in the elderly. International Journal of Audiology, 25, 400–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walden, B. E., Demorest, M. E., & Helper, E. L. (1984). Self-report approach to assessing benefit derived from amplification. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 27, 49–56.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Whitmer, W. M., Howell, P., & Akeroyd, M. A. (2014). Proposed norms for the Glasgow hearing aid benefit profile (GHABP) questionnaire. International Journal of Audiology, 53, 345–351.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • WHO (World Health Organization). (2001a). International classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF). Geneva: World Health Organization.

    Google Scholar 

  • WHO (World Health Organization). (2001b). Disability Assessment Schedule II (WHO-DAS II). Geneva: World Health Organization.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu, Y. H., & Bentler, R. A. (2012). The influence of audiovisual ceiling performance on the relationship between reverberation and directional benefit: Perception and prediction. Ear and Hearing, 33, 604–614.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Yueh, B., McDowell, J. A., Collins, M., Souza, P. E., Loovis, C. F., & Devo, R. A. (2005). Development and validation of the effectiveness of auditory rehabilitation scale. Archives of Otolaryngology, 131, 851–857.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zarnoch, J. M., & Alpiner, J. G. (1978). The Denver scale of communication function for senior citizens living in retirement centres. In J. G. Alpiner (ed.), Handbook of adult rehabilitative audiology (pp. 166–168). Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, pp. 166–168.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Medical Research Council (grant number U135097131) and by the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government.

Conflict of interest William Whitmer declares he has no conflict of interest.Kay Wright-Whyte declares she has no conflict of interest.Jack Holman declares he has no conflict of interest.Michael Akeroyd declares he has no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. MRC/CSO Institute of Hearing Research – Scottish Section, Glasgow Royal Infirmary, 10-16 Alexandra Parade, Glasgow, G31 2ER, UK

    William M. Whitmer, Kay F. Wright-Whyte & Jack A. Holman

  2. Institute of Hearing Research, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham Medical School, Nottingham, NG7 2UH, UK

    Michael A. Akeroyd

  3. MRC Institute of Hearing Research, University Park, Nottingham, NG7 2RD, UK

    Michael A. Akeroyd

Authors
  1. William M. Whitmer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kay F. Wright-Whyte
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jack A. Holman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Michael A. Akeroyd
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to William M. Whitmer .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA

    Gerald R. Popelka

  2. Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom

    Brian C. J. Moore

  3. Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole, Massachusetts, USA

    Richard R. Fay

  4. Department of Biology, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland, USA

    Arthur N. Popper

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Whitmer, W.M., Wright-Whyte, K.F., Holman, J.A., Akeroyd, M.A. (2016). Hearing Aid Validation. In: Popelka, G., Moore, B., Fay, R., Popper, A. (eds) Hearing Aids. Springer Handbook of Auditory Research, vol 56. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-33036-5_10

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation