Auditory disabilities, individual fitting targets, and the compensation power of hearing aids

  • Simon Lansbergen Clinical & Experimental Audiology AMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
  • Inge De Ronde-Brons Clinical & Experimental Audiology AMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
  • Monique Boymans Clinical & Experimental Audiology AMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
  • Wim Soede Audiology, LUMC, Leiden, The Netherlands
  • Wouter Dreschler Clinical & Experimental Audiology AMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Abstract

There is lack of a systematic approach how to select an adequate hearing aid and how to evaluate its efficacy towards the personal needs of rehabilitation. The goal of this study was to examine the applicability and added value of two widely used self-reporting questionnaires (COSI and AVAB) in relation to the evaluation of hearing aid fitting. We analysed responses from 740 subjects who filled in the questionnaires pre and post hearing aid fitting. Results show a moderate to strong correspondence between COSI scores for overall degree of change and final ability. Most COSI responses are at or near the maximum possible score and show slight differences in overall scores considering the effect of hearing aid experience or hearing loss. AVAB results reveal a more refined evaluation of the hearing aid fitting. Combining the advantages of both methods results in a profound evaluation of hearing aid rehabilitation. Our results suggest that both methods should be used complementary, rather than separately.

References

Dillon, H., James, A., and Ginis, J. (1997). “Client Oriented Scale of Improvement (COSI) and its relationship to several other measures of benefit and satisfaction provided by hearing aids,” J. Am. Acad. Audiol., 8, 27-43.

Dillon, H., Birtles, G., and Lovegrove, R. (1999). “Measuring the outcome of a national rehabilitation program: Normative data for the Client Orientated Scale of Improvement (COSI) and the Hearing Aid User’s Questionnaire (HAUQ),” J. Am. Acad. Audiol., 10, 67-79.

Dreschler, W.A., de Ronde-Brons, I. (2016). “A profiling system for the assessment of individual needs for rehabilitation with hearing aids,” Trends Hear., 20, doi: 10.1177/2331216516673639

Fuente, A., McPherson, B., Kramer, S.E., Hormazábal, X., and Hickson, L. (2012). “Adaptation of the Amsterdam Inventory for Auditory Disability and Handicap into Spanish,” Disabil. Rehabil., 34, 2076-2084. doi: 10.3109/09638288.2012.671884

Kramer, S.E., Kapteyn, T.S., Festen, J.M., and Tobi, H. (1995). “Factors in subjective hearing disability,” Int. J. Audiol., 34, 311-320. doi: 10.3109/00206099509071921

Meijer, A.G.W., Wit, H.P., Tenvergert, E.M., Albers, F.W.J., and Kobold, J.P.M. (2003). “Reliability and validity of the (modified) Amsterdam Inventory for Auditory Disability and Handicap,” Int. J. Audiol., 42, 220-226. doi: 10.3109/14992020309101317

Zelski, R.F. (2000). “Use of the Client Oriented Scale of Improvement as a clinical outcome measure in the Veterans Affairs national hearing aid program,” Graduate dissertation.
Published
2017-12-20
How to Cite
LANSBERGEN, Simon et al. Auditory disabilities, individual fitting targets, and the compensation power of hearing aids. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Auditory and Audiological Research, [S.l.], v. 6, p. 191-198, dec. 2017. Available at: <https://proceedings.isaar.eu/index.php/isaarproc/article/view/2017-23>. Date accessed: 23 jan. 2018.
Section
2017/4. Assessment of specific auditory functions and hearing ability