Cargando…

Reasons for ceiling ratings in real-life evaluations of hearing aids: the relationship between SNR and hearing aid ratings

INTRODUCTION: In past Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA) studies, hearing aid outcome ratings have often been close to ceiling. METHODS: To analyze the underlying reasons for the very positive ratings, we conducted a study with 17 experienced hearing aid wearers who were fitted with study hearing...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Schinkel-Bielefeld, Nadja, Ritslev, Jana, Lelic, Dina
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10436089/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37600480
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fdgth.2023.1134490
_version_ 1785092249231556608
author Schinkel-Bielefeld, Nadja
Ritslev, Jana
Lelic, Dina
author_facet Schinkel-Bielefeld, Nadja
Ritslev, Jana
Lelic, Dina
author_sort Schinkel-Bielefeld, Nadja
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: In past Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA) studies, hearing aid outcome ratings have often been close to ceiling. METHODS: To analyze the underlying reasons for the very positive ratings, we conducted a study with 17 experienced hearing aid wearers who were fitted with study hearing aids. The acceptable noise level and the noise level where participants were unable to follow speech were measured. The participants then rated hearing aid satisfaction, speech understanding and listening effort for pre-defined SNRs between −10 and +20 dB SPL in the laboratory. These ratings were compared to ratings of a two-week EMA trial. Additionally, estimates of SNRs were collected from hearing aids during the EMA trial and we assessed whether the participants experienced those SNRs rated poorly in the laboratory in real life. RESULTS: The results showed that for hearing aid satisfaction and speech understanding, the full rating scale was used in the laboratory, while the ratings in real life were strongly skewed towards the positive end of the scale. In the laboratory, SNRs where participants indicated they could not follow the narrator (“unable to follow” noise level) were rated clearly better than the lowest possible ratings. This indicates that very negative ratings may not be applicable in real-life testing. The lower part of the distribution of real-life SNR estimates was related to participants’ individual “unable to follow” noise levels and the SNRs which were rated poorly in the laboratory made up less than 10% of the speech situations experienced in real life. DISCUSSION: This indicates that people do not seem to frequently experience listening situations at SNRs where they are dissatisfied with their hearing aids and this could be the reason for the overly positive hearing aid outcome ratings in EMA studies. It remains unclear to what extent the scarcity of such situations is due lack of encounters or intentional avoidance.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10436089
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-104360892023-08-19 Reasons for ceiling ratings in real-life evaluations of hearing aids: the relationship between SNR and hearing aid ratings Schinkel-Bielefeld, Nadja Ritslev, Jana Lelic, Dina Front Digit Health Digital Health INTRODUCTION: In past Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA) studies, hearing aid outcome ratings have often been close to ceiling. METHODS: To analyze the underlying reasons for the very positive ratings, we conducted a study with 17 experienced hearing aid wearers who were fitted with study hearing aids. The acceptable noise level and the noise level where participants were unable to follow speech were measured. The participants then rated hearing aid satisfaction, speech understanding and listening effort for pre-defined SNRs between −10 and +20 dB SPL in the laboratory. These ratings were compared to ratings of a two-week EMA trial. Additionally, estimates of SNRs were collected from hearing aids during the EMA trial and we assessed whether the participants experienced those SNRs rated poorly in the laboratory in real life. RESULTS: The results showed that for hearing aid satisfaction and speech understanding, the full rating scale was used in the laboratory, while the ratings in real life were strongly skewed towards the positive end of the scale. In the laboratory, SNRs where participants indicated they could not follow the narrator (“unable to follow” noise level) were rated clearly better than the lowest possible ratings. This indicates that very negative ratings may not be applicable in real-life testing. The lower part of the distribution of real-life SNR estimates was related to participants’ individual “unable to follow” noise levels and the SNRs which were rated poorly in the laboratory made up less than 10% of the speech situations experienced in real life. DISCUSSION: This indicates that people do not seem to frequently experience listening situations at SNRs where they are dissatisfied with their hearing aids and this could be the reason for the overly positive hearing aid outcome ratings in EMA studies. It remains unclear to what extent the scarcity of such situations is due lack of encounters or intentional avoidance. Frontiers Media S.A. 2023-08-03 /pmc/articles/PMC10436089/ /pubmed/37600480 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fdgth.2023.1134490 Text en © 2023 Schinkel-Bielefeld, Ritslev and Lelic. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Digital Health
Schinkel-Bielefeld, Nadja
Ritslev, Jana
Lelic, Dina
Reasons for ceiling ratings in real-life evaluations of hearing aids: the relationship between SNR and hearing aid ratings
title Reasons for ceiling ratings in real-life evaluations of hearing aids: the relationship between SNR and hearing aid ratings
title_full Reasons for ceiling ratings in real-life evaluations of hearing aids: the relationship between SNR and hearing aid ratings
title_fullStr Reasons for ceiling ratings in real-life evaluations of hearing aids: the relationship between SNR and hearing aid ratings
title_full_unstemmed Reasons for ceiling ratings in real-life evaluations of hearing aids: the relationship between SNR and hearing aid ratings
title_short Reasons for ceiling ratings in real-life evaluations of hearing aids: the relationship between SNR and hearing aid ratings
title_sort reasons for ceiling ratings in real-life evaluations of hearing aids: the relationship between snr and hearing aid ratings
topic Digital Health
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10436089/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37600480
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fdgth.2023.1134490
work_keys_str_mv AT schinkelbielefeldnadja reasonsforceilingratingsinreallifeevaluationsofhearingaidstherelationshipbetweensnrandhearingaidratings
AT ritslevjana reasonsforceilingratingsinreallifeevaluationsofhearingaidstherelationshipbetweensnrandhearingaidratings
AT lelicdina reasonsforceilingratingsinreallifeevaluationsofhearingaidstherelationshipbetweensnrandhearingaidratings