Hearing Health Care Utilization Following Automated Hearing Screening.

BACKGROUND: The study examined follow-up rates for pursuing hearing health care (HHC) 6 to 8 months after participants self-administered one of three hearing screening methods: an automated method for testing of auditory sensitivity (AMTAS), a four-frequency pure-tone screener (FFS), or a digits-in-noise test (DIN), with and without the presentation of a 2-minute educational video about hearing. PURPOSE: The study aims to determine if the type of self-administered hearing screening method (with or without an educational video) affects HHC follow-up rates. RESEARCH DESIGN: The study is a randomized controlled trial of three automated hearing screening methods, plus control group, with and without an educational video. The control group completed questionnaires and provided follow-up data but did not undergo a hearing screening test. STUDY SAMPLE: The study sample includes 1,665 participants (mean age 50.8 years; 935 males) at two VA Medical Centers and at university and community centers in Portland, OR; Bay Pines, FL; Minneapolis, MN; Mauston, WI; and Columbus, OH. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: HHC follow-up data at 6 to 8 months were obtained by contacting participants by phone or mail. Screening methods and participant characteristics were compared in relation to the probability of participants pursuing HHC during the follow-up period. RESULTS: The 2-minute educational video did not have a significant effect on HHC follow-up rates. When all participants who provided follow-up data are considered (n = 1012), the FFS was the only test that resulted in a significantly greater percentage of HHC follow-up (24.6%) compared with the control group (16.8%); p = 0.03. However, for participants who failed a hearing screening (n = 467), follow-up results for all screening methods were significantly greater than for controls. The FFS resulted in a greater probability for HHC follow-up overall than the other two screening methods. Moreover, veterans had higher follow-up rates for all screening methods than non-veterans. CONCLUSION: The FFS resulted in a greater HHC follow-up rate compared with the other screening methods. This self-administered test may be more motivational for HHC follow-up because participants who fail the screening are aware of sounds they could not hear which does not occur with adaptive assessments like AMTAS or the DIN test. It is likely that access to and reduced personal cost of audiological services for veterans contributed to higher HHC follow-up rates in this group compared with non-veteran participants.

A Randomized Control Trial: Supplementing Hearing Aid Use with Listening and Communication Enhancement (LACE) Auditory Training.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the effectiveness of the Listening and Communication Enhancement (LACE) program as a supplement to standard-of-care hearing aid intervention in a Veteran population. DESIGN: A multisite randomized controlled trial was conducted to compare outcomes following standard-of-care hearing aid intervention supplemented with (1) LACE training using the 10-session DVD format, (2) LACE training using the 20-session computer-based format, (3) placebo auditory training (AT) consisting of actively listening to 10 hr of digitized books on a computer, and (4) educational counseling-the control group. The study involved 3 VA sites and enrolled 279 veterans. Both new and experienced hearing aid users participated to determine if outcomes differed as a function of hearing aid user status. Data for five behavioral and two self-report measures were collected during three research visits: baseline, immediately following the intervention period, and at 6 months postintervention. The five behavioral measures were selected to determine whether the perceptual and cognitive skills targeted in LACE training generalized to untrained tasks that required similar underlying skills. The two self-report measures were completed to determine whether the training resulted in a lessening of activity limitations and participation restrictions. Outcomes were obtained from 263 participants immediately following the intervention period and from 243 participants 6 months postintervention. Analyses of covariance comparing performance on each outcome measure separately were conducted using intervention and hearing aid user status as between-subject factors, visit as a within-subject factor, and baseline performance as a covariate. RESULTS: No statistically significant main effects or interactions were found for the use of LACE on any outcome measure. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this randomized controlled trial show that LACE training does not result in improved outcomes over standard-of-care hearing aid intervention alone. Potential benefits of AT may be different than those assessed by the performance and self-report measures utilized here. Individual differences not assessed in this study should be examined to evaluate whether AT with LACE has any benefits for particular individuals. Clinically, these findings suggest that audiologists may want to temper the expectations of their patients who embark on LACE training.

Validation of a screening test of auditory function using the telephone.

BACKGROUND: Several European countries have demonstrated successful use of telephone screening tests for auditory function. The screening test consists of spoken three-digit sequences presented in a noise background. The speech-to-noise ratios of the stimuli are determined by an adaptive tracking method that converges on the level required to achieve 50% correct recognition. PURPOSE: A version of the three-digit telephone screening protocol for the United States was developed: the US National Hearing Test (NHT). The objective of the current study was to determine the sensitivity and specificity as well as the feasibility of the NHT for use within the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Research Design and Study Sample: Using a multisite study design with convenience sampling, we used the NHT to collect data from 693 participants (1379 ears) from three geographical areas of the United States (Florida, Tennessee, and California). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The NHT procedures were as follows: the participants (1) called a toll-free telephone number, (2) entered their assigned ear-specific identification code, (3) listened to 40-sets of digit triplets presented in speech-spectrum background noise, and (4) entered in the numbers that they heard on the telephone key pad. The NHT was performed on each ear, either at home or in a VA clinic. In addition to collecting data from the experimental task, we gathered demographic data and the data from other standard-of-care tests (i.e., audiometric thresholds and speech recognition tests in quiet and in noise). RESULTS: A total of 505 participants completed the NHT at a VA clinic, whereas 188 completed the test at home. Although the ear-specific NHT and mean pure-tone threshold all correlated significantly (p < 0.001), there were more modest correlations in the low- and high-frequency ranges with the highest correlation seen with the 2000 Hz mean pure-tone threshold. When the NHT 50% point or threshold was compared with the three-frequency PTA at 500, 1000, and 2000 Hz, the sensitivity was 0.87 and specificity was 0.54. When comparing the NHT with the four-frequency PTA at 500, 1000, 2000, and 4000 Hz, the sensitivity was 0.81 and specificity increased to 0.65. The NHT also correlated strongly with other speech-in-noise measures. CONCLUSIONS: The NHT was found to correlate with other audiometric measures, including pure-tone thresholds and speech recognition tests in noise, at sufficiently high correlation values to support its use as a screening test of auditory function.

Learning to listen again: the role of compliance in auditory training for adults with hearing loss.

PURPOSE: To examine the role of compliance in the outcomes of computer-based auditory training with the Listening and Communication Enhancement (LACE) program in Veterans using hearing aids. METHOD: The authors examined available LACE training data for 5 tasks (i.e., speech-in-babble, time compression, competing speaker, auditory memory, missing word) from 50 hearing-aid users who participated in a larger, randomized controlled trial designed to examine the efficacy of LACE training. The goals were to determine: (a) whether there were changes in performance over 20 training sessions on trained tasks (i.e., on-task outcomes); and (b) whether compliance, defined as completing all 20 sessions, vs. noncompliance, defined as completing less than 20 sessions, influenced performance on parallel untrained tasks (i.e., off-task outcomes). RESULTS: The majority, 84% of participants, completed 20 sessions, with maximum outcome occurring with at least 10 sessions of training for some tasks and up to 20 sessions of training for others. Comparison of baseline to posttest performance revealed statistically significant improvements for 4 of 7 off-task outcome measures for the compliant group, with at least small (0.2 < d < 0.3) Cohen's d effect sizes for 3 of the 4. There were no statistically significant improvements observed for the noncompliant group. CONCLUSION: The high level of compliance in the present study may be attributable to use of systematized verbal and written instructions with telephone follow-up. Compliance, as expected, appears important for optimizing the outcomes of auditory training. Methods to improve compliance in clinical populations need to be developed, and compliance data are important to report in future studies of auditory training.

Style preference survey: a report on the psychometric properties and a cross-validation experiment.

BACKGROUND: Several self-report measures exist that target different aspects of outcomes for hearing aid use. Currently, no comprehensive questionnaire specifically assesses factors that may be important for differentiating outcomes pertaining to hearing aid style. PURPOSE: The goal of this work was to develop the Style Preference Survey (SPS), a questionnaire aimed at outcomes associated with hearing aid style differences. Two experiments were conducted. After initial item development, Experiment 1 was conducted to refine the items and to determine its psychometric properties. Experiment 2 was designed to cross-validate the findings from the initial experiment. RESEARCH DESIGN: An observational design was used in both experiments. STUDY SAMPLE: Participants who wore traditional, custom-fitted (TC) or open-canal (OC) style hearing aids from 3 mo to 3 yr completed the initial experiment. One-hundred and eighty-four binaural hearing aid users (120 of whom wore TC hearing aids and 64 of whom wore OC hearing aids) participated. A new sample of TC and OC users (n = 185) participated in the cross-validation experiment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Currently available self-report measures were reviewed to identify items that might differentiate between hearing aid styles, particularly preference for OC versus TC hearing aid styles. A total of 15 items were selected and modified from available self-report measures. An additional 55 items were developed through consensus of six audiologists for the initial version of the SPS. In the first experiment, the initial SPS version was mailed to 550 veterans who met the inclusion criteria. A total of 184 completed the SPS. Approximately three weeks later, a subset of participants (n = 83) completed the SPS a second time. Basic analyses were conducted to evaluate the psychometric properties of the SPS including subscale structure, internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and responsiveness. Based on the results of Experiment 1, the SPS was revised. A cross-validation experiment was then conducted using the revised version of the SPS to confirm the subscale structure, internal consistency, and responsiveness of the questionnaire in a new sample of participants. RESULTS: The final factor analysis led to the ultimate version of the SPS, which had a total of 35 items encompassing five subscales: (1) Feedback, (2) Occlusion/Own Voice Effects, (3) Localization, (4) Fit, Comfort, and Cosmetics, and (5) Ease of Use. The internal consistency of the total SPS (Cronbach's α = .92) and of the subscales (each Cronbach's α > .75) was high. Intraclass correlations (ICCs) showed that the test-retest reliability of the total SPS (ICC = .93) and of the subscales (each ICC > .80) also was high. TC hearing aid users had significantly poorer outcomes than OC hearing aid users on 4 of the 5 subscales, suggesting that the SPS largely is responsive to factors related to style-specific differences. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that the SPS has good psychometric properties and is a valid and reliable measure of outcomes related to style-specific, hearing aid preference.

Subjective and objective outcomes from new BiCROS technology in a veteran sample.

BACKGROUND: Patients with single-sided deafness (SSD), where one ear has an unaidable hearing loss and the other ear has normal or aidable hearing, often complain of difficulties understanding speech and localizing sound sources, and report a higher self-perceived hearing disability. Patients with SSD may benefit from using contralateral routing of signal (CROS) or bilateral contralateral routing of the signal (BiCROS) amplification. Dissatisfaction of previously available (Bi)CROS devices has been reported, such as, interfering transmissions, low-fidelity sound quality, poor "user-friendly" set-up, and a bulky and cosmetically cumbersome appearance. PURPOSE: Recent advances in hearing aid technology have improved (Bi)CROS hearing aids; however, these devices have not been experimentally evaluated. We hypothesized that newer technology with reports of improved digital signal processing, wireless transmission, and physical design would be as good, or better than, our participants' previous-generation BiCROS systems. RESEARCH DESIGN: A within-subjects, pretest-posttest design was executed. STUDY SAMPLE: Thirty-nine veterans (one female, 38 males; mean age = 74 yr, range = 49-85 yr) from the Audiology Section of the Bay Pines Veterans Affair Healthcare System participated. All participants were previously experienced BiCROS hearing aid users with varying degrees of sensorinerual hearing impairment in their better ear. INTERVENTION: Participants were provided at least 4 wk of consistent use with the new BiCROS. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSES: Participants completed three research visits. At Visit 1, with their previous BiCROS, and at Visit 3, with their new BiCROS, the following objective and subjective measures were obtained: (1) soundfield speech-in-noise testing using the Words-In-Noise (WIN) test; (2) speech, spatial, and qualities of the hearing scale (SSQ) questionnaire; (3) selected questions from the MarkeTrak questionnaire; and, (4) three open-ended questions. Data were analyzed using parametric and nonparametric statistics. RESULTS: Overall, the objective (WIN) and subjective (SSQ, MarkeTrak, and open-ended questions) measures indicated that the new BiCROS provided better outcomes than the previous BiCROS system. In addition, an overlap of favorable results was seen across measures. CONCLUSIONS: Of the 39 participants, 95% reported improvements with the new BiCROS and chose to utilize the device regularly. The favorable objective and subjective outcomes indicate that the new BiCROS system is as good, or better than, what was previously utilized by our sample of veterans.

Are two ears not better than one?

BACKGROUND: The decision to fit one or two hearing aids in individuals with binaural hearing loss has been debated for years. Although some 78% of U.S. hearing aid fittings are binaural (Kochkin , 2010), Walden and Walden (2005) presented data showing that 82% (23 of 28 patients) of their sample obtained significantly better speech recognition in noise scores when wearing one hearing aid as opposed to two. PURPOSE: To conduct two new experiments to fuel the monaural/binaural debate. The first experiment was a replication of Walden and Walden (2005), whereas the second experiment examined the use of binaural cues to improve speech recognition in noise. RESEARCH DESIGN: A repeated measures experimental design. STUDY SAMPLE: Twenty veterans (aged 59-85 yr), with mild to moderately severe binaurally symmetrical hearing loss who wore binaural hearing aids were recruited from the Audiology Department at the Bay Pines VA Healthcare System. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Experiment 1 followed the procedures of the Walden and Walden study, where signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) loss was measured using the Quick Speech-in-Noise (QuickSIN) test on participants who were aided with their current hearing aids. Signal and noise were presented in the sound booth at 0° azimuth under five test conditions: (1) right ear aided, (2) left ear aided, (3) both ears aided, (4) right ear aided, left ear plugged, and (5) unaided. The opposite ear in (1) and (2) was left open. In Experiment 2, binaural Knowles Electronics Manikin for Acoustic Research (KEMAR) manikin recordings made in Lou Malnati's pizza restaurant during a busy period provided a typical real-world noise, while prerecorded target sentences were presented through a small loudspeaker located in front of the KEMAR manikin. Subjects listened to the resulting binaural recordings through insert earphones under the following four conditions: (1) binaural, (2) diotic, (3) monaural left, and (4) monaural right. RESULTS: Results of repeated measures ANOVAs demonstrated that the best speech recognition in noise performance was obtained by most participants with both ears aided in Experiment 1 and in the binaural condition in Experiment 2. CONCLUSIONS: In both experiments, only 20% of our subjects did better in noise with a single ear, roughly similar to the earlier Jerger et al (1993) finding that 8-10% of elderly hearing aid users preferred one hearing aid.

An Evaluation of the BKB-SIN, HINT, QuickSIN, and WIN Materials on Listeners With Normal Hearing and Listeners With Hearing Loss.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to examine in listeners with normal hearing and listeners with sensorineural hearing loss the within- and between-group differences obtained with 4 commonly available speech-in-noise protocols. METHOD: Recognition performances by 24 listeners with normal hearing and 72 listeners with sensorineural hearing loss were compared for 4 speech-in-noise protocols that varied with respect to the amount of contextual cues conveyed in the target signal. The protocols studied included the Bamford-Kowal-Bench Speech-in-Noise Test (BKB-SIN; Etymotic Research, 2005; J. Bench, A. Kowal, & J. Bamford, 1979; P. Niquette et al., 2003), the Quick Speech-in-Noise Test (QuickSIN; M. C. Killion, P. A. Niquette, G. I. Gudmundsen, L. J. Revit, & S. Banerjee, 2004), and the Words-in-Noise test (WIN; R. H. Wilson, 2003; R. H. Wilson & C. A. Burks, 2005), each of which used multitalker babble and a modified method of constants, as well as the Hearing in Noise Test (HINT; M. Nilsson, S. Soli, & J. Sullivan, 1994), which used speech-spectrum noise and an adaptive psychophysical procedure. RESULTS: The 50% points for the listeners with normal hearing were in the 1- to 4-dB signal-to-babble ratio (S/B) range and for the listeners with hearing loss in the 5- to 14-dB S/B range. Separation between groups was least with the BKB-SIN and HINT (4-6 dB) and most with the QuickSIN and WIN (8-10 dB). CONCLUSION: The QuickSIN and WIN materials are more sensitive measures of recognition performance in background noise than are the BKB-SIN and HINT materials.

Homogeneity of the 18 QuickSIN lists.

The purpose of this study was to determine the list equivalency of the 18 QuickSIN (Quick Speech in Noise test) lists. Individuals with normal hearing (n = 24) and with sensorineural hearing loss (n = 72) were studied. Mean recognition performances on the 18 lists by the listeners with normal hearing were 2.8 to 4.3 dB SNR (signal-to-noise ratio), whereas the range was 10.0 to 14.3 dB SNR for the listeners with hearing loss. The psychometric functions for each list showed high performance variability across lists for listeners with hearing loss but not for listeners with normal hearing. For listeners with hearing loss, Lists 4, 5, 13, and 16 fell outside of the critical difference. The data from this study suggest nine lists that provide homogenous results for listeners with and without hearing loss. Finally, there was an 8.7 dB difference in performances between the two groups indicating a more favorable signal-to-noise ratio required by the listeners with hearing loss to obtain equal performance.

Speech recognition in multitalker babble using digits, words, and sentences.

The purpose of this mixed model design was to examine recognition performance differences when measuring speech recognition in multitalker babble on listeners with normal hearing (n = 36) and listeners with hearing loss (n = 72) utilizing stimulus of varying linguistic complexity (digits, words, and sentence materials). All listeners were administered two trials of two lists of each material in a descending speech-to-babble ratio. For each of the materials, recognition performances by the listeners with normal hearing were significantly better than the performances by the listeners with hearing loss. The mean separation between groups at the 50% point in signal-to-babble ratio on each of the three materials was approximately 8 dB. The 50% points for digits were obtained at a significantly lower signal-to-babble ratio than for sentences or words that were equivalent. There were no interlist differences between the two lists for the digits and words, but there was a significant disparity between QuickSIN lists for the listeners with hearing loss. A two-item questionnaire was used to obtain a subjective measurement of speech recognition, which showed moderate correlations with objective measures of speech recognition in noise using digits (r = .641), sentences (r = .572), and words (r = .673).