Hearing-aid counseling: comparison of single-session informational counseling with single-session performance-perceptual counseling.

OBJECTIVE: Hearing-aid counseling can improve outcome but programs are often too resource-intensive to be clinically practical. Here we examined the effectiveness of single-session informational counseling with single-session performance-perceptual counseling. DESIGN: Two forms of counseling were compared: informational counseling (IC) and performance-perceptual counseling (PPC). IC focused on discussing communication strategies and tips for hearing-aid use. PPC addressed the discrepancy between measured and perceived ability to understand speech. Outcomes were measured eight-to-ten weeks post-counseling using quantitative and qualitative measures: Hearing handicap inventory, abbreviated profile of hearing aid benefit, psychosocial impact of assistive devices scale (PIADS), international outcome inventory for hearing aids, and a semi-structured exit interview. STUDY SAMPLE: Seventy-four hearing aid-users with symmetrical sensorineural hearing loss participated. RESULTS: Scores on the hearing questionnaires showed no change following either form of counseling. Scores on the PIADS improved for participants as a whole, and the semi-structured interview revealed increased hearing-aid use, better understanding and acceptance of hearing loss, increased use of communication strategies, and improved ability to explain hearing difficulties to others. CONCLUSIONS: A single session of hearing-aid counseling can improve hearing-aid use and satisfaction. Open-ended interview and/or quality of life measures are more sensitive to these benefits than hearing questionnaires.

Expectations, prefitting counseling, and hearing aid outcome.

BACKGROUND: Data suggest that having high expectations about hearing aids results in better overall outcome. However, some have postulated that excessively high expectations will result in disappointment and thus poor outcome. It has been suggested that counseling patients with unrealistic expectations about hearing aids prior to fitting may be beneficial. Data, however, are mixed as to the effectiveness of such counseling, in terms of both changes in expectations and final outcome. PURPOSE: The primary purpose of this study was to determine whether supplementing prefitting counseling with demonstration of real-world listening can (1) alter expectations of new hearing aid users and (2) increase satisfaction over verbal-only counseling. Secondary goals of the study were to examine (1) the relationship between prefitting expectations and postfitting outcome, and (2) the effect of hearing aid fine-tuning on hearing aid outcome. RESEARCH DESIGN: Sixty new hearing aid users were fitted binaurally with Beltone Oria behind-the-ear digital hearing aids. Forty participants received prefitting counseling and demonstration of listening situations with the Beltone AVE (Audio Verification Environment) system; 20 received prefitting counseling without a demonstration of listening situations. Hearing aid expectations were measured at initial contact and following prefitting counseling. Reported hearing aid outcome was measured after eight to ten weeks of hearing aid use. STUDY SAMPLE: Sixty new hearing aid users aged between 55 and 81 years with symmetrical sensorineural hearing loss. INTERVENTION: Participants were randomly assigned to one of three experimental groups, between which the prefitting counseling and follow-up differed: Group 1 received prefitting counseling in combination with demonstration of listening situations. Additionally, if the participant had complaints about sound quality at the follow-up visit, the hearing aids were fine-tuned using the Beltone AVE system. Group 2 received prefitting counseling in combination with demonstration of listening situations with the Beltone AVE system, but no fine-tuning was provided at follow-up. Group 3 received prefitting hearing aid counseling that did not include demonstration of listening, and the hearing aids were not fine-tuned at the follow-up appointment. RESULTS: The results showed that prefitting hearing aid counseling had small but significant effects on expectations. The two forms of counseling did not differ in their effectiveness at changing expectations; however, anecdotally, we learned from many participants that that they enjoyed listening to the auditory demonstrations and that they found them to be an interesting listening exercise. The data also show that positive expectations result in more positive outcome and that hearing aid fine-tuning is beneficial to the user. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that prefitting counseling can be advantageous to hearing aid outcome and recommend the addition of prefitting counseling to address expectations associated with quality of life and self-image. The data emphasize the need to address unrealistic expectations prior to fitting hearing aids cautiously, so as not to decrease expectations to the extent of discouraging and demotivating the patient. Data also show that positive expectations regarding the impact hearing aids will have on psychosocial well-being are important for successful hearing aid outcome.

The Attitudes towards Loss of Hearing Questionnaire (ALHQ): a comparison of paper and electronic formats.

The purpose of the study was to determine whether scores obtained on the ALHQ when completed in electronic format are the same as when completed in paper format. Four groups of 25 individuals participated. Each completed the ALHQ on two occasions in either its paper version, its electronic version, or both. The variance in ALHQ scores from the first to second administrations was compared across test groups. Data showed that the two forms of the questionnaire yielded equivalent scores but that completion in different modes on both occasions resulted in more variability in scores than completion in the same mode on both occasions. It is concluded that when comparing questionnaire data across administrations, the same response format should be used. Electronic completion took longer than paper completion, but it is concluded that the numerous advantages of electronic administration outweigh the disadvantages of additional completion time.

The Performance-Perceptual Test (PPT) and its relationship to aided reported handicap and hearing aid satisfaction.

OBJECTIVE: Results of objective clinical tests (e.g., measures of speech understanding in noise) often conflict with subjective reports of hearing aid benefit and satisfaction. The Performance-Perceptual Test (PPT) is an outcome measure in which objective and subjective evaluations are made by using the same test materials, testing format, and unit of measurement (signal-to-noise ratio, S/N), permitting a direct comparison between measured and perceived ability to hear. Two variables are measured: a Performance Speech Reception Threshold in Noise (SRTN) for 50% correct performance and a Perceptual SRTN, which is the S/N at which listeners perceive that they can understand the speech material. A third variable is computed: the Performance-Perceptual Discrepancy (PPDIS); it is the difference between the Performance and Perceptual SRTNs and measures the extent to which listeners "misjudge" their hearing ability. Saunders et al. in 2004 examined the relation between PPT scores and unaided hearing handicap. In this publication, the relations between the PPT, residual aided handicap, and hearing aid satisfaction are described. DESIGN: Ninety-four individuals between the ages of 47 and 86 yr participated. All had symmetrical sensorineural hearing loss and had worn binaural hearing aids for at least 6 wk before participating. All subjects underwent routine audiological examination and completed the PPT, the Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly/Adults (HHIE/A), and the Satisfaction for Amplification in Daily Life questionnaire. Sixty-five subjects attended one research visit for participation in this study, and 29 attended a second visit to complete the PPT a second time. RESULTS: Performance and Perceptual SRTN and PPDIS scores were normally distributed and showed excellent test-retest reliability. Aided SRTNs were significantly better than unaided SRTNs; aided and unaided PPDIS values did not differ. Stepwise multiple linear regression showed that the PPDIS, the Performance SRTN, and age were significant predictors of scores on the HHIE/A such that greater reported handicap is associated with underestimating hearing ability, poorer aided ability to understand speech in noise, and being younger. Scores on the Satisfaction with Amplification in Daily Life were not well explained by the PPT, age, or audiometric thresholds. When individuals were grouped by their HHIE/A scores, it was seen that individuals who report more handicap than expected based on their audiometric thresholds, have a more negative PPDIS, i.e., underestimate their hearing ability, relative to individuals who report expected handicap, who in turn have a more negative PPDIS than individuals who report less handicap than expected. No such patterns were apparent for the Performance SRTN. CONCLUSIONS: The study showed the PPT to be a reliable outcome measure that can provide more information than a performance measure and/or a questionnaire measure alone, in that the PPDIS can provide the clinician with an explanation for discrepant objective and subjective reports of hearing difficulties. The finding that self-reported handicap is affected independently by both actual ability to hear and the (mis)perception of ability to hear underscores the difficulty clinicians encounter when trying to interpret outcomes questionnaires. We suggest that this variable should be measured and taken into account when interpreting questionnaires and counseling patients.

Normative data for the Attitudes towards Loss of Hearing Questionnaire.

Investigations have shown that patient attitudes toward hearing loss and hearing aids impact self-reported handicap and disability, hearing aid benefit, and hearing aid use. The Attitudes towards Loss of Hearing Questionnaire (ALHQ) was developed by Saunders and Cienkowski (1996) to examine some of the psychosocial factors underlying the use and acquisition of hearing aids. Here we report data from a new version of questionnaire (ALHQ v2.1), which examines attitudes towards hearing loss and hearing aids on five scales: Denial of Hearing Loss, Negative Associations, Negative Coping Strategies, Manual Dexterity and Vision, and Hearing-Related Esteem. Reliability values, internal consistency values, and cut points for typical and atypical scores are provided, along with comparison of the scores of women, men, current hearing aid users, non-hearing aid users, and paying versus nonpaying individuals. The ALHQ takes about ten minutes to complete and identifies for the clinician some of the issues that might jeopardize successful hearing aid outcome.

The performance-perceptual test and its relationship to unaided reported handicap.

OBJECTIVE: Measurement of hearing aid outcomes is necessary for demonstration of treatment efficacy, third-party payment, and cost-benefit analysis. Outcomes are usually measured with hearing-related questionnaires and/or tests of speech recognition. However, results from these two types of test often conflict. In this paper, we provide data from a new test measure, known as the Performance-Perceptual Test (PPT), in which subjective and performance aspects of hearing in noise are measured using the same test materials and procedures. A Performance Speech Reception Threshold (SRTN) and a Perceptual SRTN are measured using the Hearing In Noise Test materials and adaptive procedure. A third variable, the discrepancy between these two SRTNs, is also computed. It measures the accuracy with which subjects assess their own hearing ability and is referred to as the Performance-Perceptual Discrepancy (PPDIS). DESIGN: One hundred seven subjects between 24 and 83 yr of age took part. Thirty-three subjects had normal hearing, while the remaining seventy-four had symmetrical sensorineural hearing loss. Of the subjects with impaired hearing, 24 wore hearing aids and 50 did not. All subjects underwent routine audiological examination and completed the PPT and the Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly/Adults on two occasions, between 1 and 2 wk apart. The PPT was conducted for unaided listening with the masker level set to 50, 65, and 80 dB SPL. RESULTS: PPT data show that the subjects with normal hearing have significantly better Performance and Perceptual SRTNs at each test level than the subjects with impaired hearing but that PPDIS values do not differ between the groups. Test-retest reliability for the PPT is excellent (r-values > 0.93 for all conditions). Stepwise multiple regression analysis showed that the Performance SRTN, the PPDIS, and age explain 40% of the variance in reported handicap (Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly/Adults scores). More specifically, poorer performance, underestimation of hearing ability and younger age result in greater reported handicap, and vice versa. CONCLUSION: Reported handicap consists of a performance component and a (mis)perception component, as measured by the Performance SRTN and the PPDIS respectively. The PPT should thus prove to be a valuable tool for better understanding why some individuals complain of hearing difficulties but have only a mild hearing loss or conversely report few difficulties in the presence of substantial impairment. The measure would thus seem to provide both an explanation and a counseling tool for patients for whom there is a mismatch between reported and measured hearing difficulties.