Top

European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology

Published in:

01-01-2008 | Review Article

Comparative studies on hearing aid selection and fitting procedures: a review of the literature

Authors: Mick Metselaar, Bert Maat, Hans Verschuure, Wouter A. Dreschler, Louw Feenstra

Published in: European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology | Issue 1/2008

Abstract

Although a large number of fitting procedures have been developed and are nowadays generally applied in modern hearing aid fitting technology, little is known about their effectiveness in comparison with each other. This paper argues the need for comparative validation studies on hearing aid fitting procedures based on the design of a randomized clinical trial and carried out in a large-scale clinical population. These studies are hard to conduct but can provide detailed information on the various aspects of the rehabilitation with hearing aids. The design of several recently reported comparative studies of hearing aid fitting procedures will be reviewed. This gives rise to a number of comments on aspects like, study design, composition of the study population and definition of outcome measures rather than on the outcome or conclusions of these studies themselves.

Alcántara JI, Moore BCJ, Marriage JE (2004) Comparison of three procedures for initial fitting of compression hearing aids. II. Experienced users, fitted unilaterally. Int J Audiol 43:3–14PubMedCrossRef

American National Standard (ANSI) (1973) American national standard method for coupler calibration of earphones. S3.7-1973. Rev. 1986

Barton G, Bankart J, Davis A, Summerfield Q (2004) Comparing utility scores before and after hearing aid provision: results according to the EQ-5D, HUI3 and SF-6D. Appl Health Econ Health Policies 3:103–105CrossRef

Bess FH (2000) The role of generic health-related quality of life measures in establishing audiological rehabilitation outcomes. Ear Hear 21(Suppl 4):74S–79SPubMedCrossRef

Carhart R (1946) Tests for selection of hearing aids. Laryngoscope 56:780–794PubMed

Cornelisse LE, Seewald RC, Jamieson DG (1995) The input/output formula: a theoretical approach to the fitting of personal amplification devices. J Acoust Soc Am 97:1854–1864PubMedCrossRef

Cox RM (2003) Assessment of subjective outcome of hearing aid fitting: getting the client’s point of view. Int J Audiol 42:S90–S96PubMed

Cox RM, Alexander GC (1991) Hearing aid benefit in everyday environments. Ear Hear 12:127–139PubMedCrossRef

Cox RM, Alexander GC (1995) The abbreviated profile of hearing aid benefit. Ear Hear 16:176–186PubMedCrossRef

10.

Dalton DS, Cruickshanks KJ, Klein BE, Klein R, Wiley TL, Nondahl DM (2003) The impact of hearing loss on quality of life in older adults. Gerontologist 43:661–668PubMed

11.

Dreschler WA, Verschuure H, Ludvigsen C, Westermann S (2001) ICRA noises: artificial noise signals with speech-like spectral and temporal properties for hearing instrument assessment. International collegium for rehabilitative audiology. Audiology 40:148–157PubMed

12.

Feeny D, Furlong W, Boyle M, Torrance GW (1995) Multi-attribute health status classification systems. Health utilities index. Pharmacoeconomics 7:490–502PubMed

13.

Gatehouse S (1993) Hearing aid evaluation: limitations of present procedures and future requirements. J Speech Lang Pathol Audiol Monograph Suppl 1:50–57

14.

Gatehouse S (1999) A self-report outcome measure for the evaluation of hearing aid fittings and services. Health Bull 57:424–436

15.

Gatehouse S, Noble W (2004) The speech, spatial and qualities of hearing scale (ssq). Int J Audiol 43:85–99PubMedCrossRef

16.

Gilson BS, Gilson JS, Bergner M, Bobbit RA, Kressel S, Pollard WE, Vessalago M (1975) The sickness impact profile: development of an outcome measure of health care. Am J Public Health 65:1304–1310PubMedCrossRef

17.

Hagerman B (1982) Sentences for testing speech intelligibility in noise. Scand Audiol 13:57–63

18.

Hagerman B (1984) Clinical measurements of speech reception threshold in noise. Scand Audiol 13:57–63PubMed

19.

Haggard MP, Foster JR, Iredale FE (1981) Use and benefit of postaural aids in sensory hearing loss. Scand Audiol 10:45–52PubMed

20.

Hamill TA, Barron TP (1992) Frequency response differences of four gain-equalized hearing aid prescription formulae. Audiology 31:87–94PubMed

21.

Hawkins D (1992) Prescriptive approaches to selection of gain and frequency response. In: Mueller HG, Hawkins DB, Northern JL (eds) Probe tube microphone measurements: hearing aid selection and assessment. Singular Publishing, San Diego

22.

Humes L, Hackett T (1990) Comparison of frequency response and aided speech-recognition performance for hearing aids selected by three different prescriptive methods. J Am Acad Audiol 1:101–108PubMed

23.

International Electrotechnical Commission (1973) IEC reference coupler for the measurement of hearing aids using earphones coupled to the ear by means of ear inserts, 2nd edn. IEC Publication 126, Geneva

24.

International Electrotechnical Commission (1981) Occluded ear simulator for the measurement of earphones coupled to the ear by ear inserts. IEC publication 711, Geneva

25.

Joore MA, Brunenberg DE, Chenault MN, Antheunis LJ (2003) Societal effects of hearing aid fitting among the moderately hearing impaired. Int J Audiol 42:152–160PubMedCrossRef

26.

Keidser G, Grant F (2001) Comparing loudness normalization (IHAFF) with speech intelligibility maximization (NAL-NL1) when implemented in a two-channel device. Ear Hear 22:501–515PubMedCrossRef

27.

Kiessling J, Schubert M, Archut A (1996) Adaptive fitting of hearing instruments by category loudness scaling (ScalAdapt). Scand Audiol 25:153–160PubMed

28.

Lunner T, Hellgren J, Arlinger S, Elberling C (1997) A digital filterbank hearing aid. Improving a prescriptive fitting with subjective adjustments. Scand Audiol 26:169–176PubMed

29.

Marriage JE, Moore BCJ, Alcántara JI (2004) Comparison of three procedures for initial fitting of compression hearing aids. III. Inexperienced versus experienced users. Int J Audiol 43:198–210PubMedCrossRef

30.

MacLeod A, Summerfield Q (1990) A procedure for measuring auditory and audio-visual speech-reception thresholds for sentences in noise: rationale, evaluation, and recommendations for use. Br J Audiol 24:29–43PubMed

31.

Moore BC, Alcántara JI, Glasberg BR (1998) Development and evaluation of a procedure for fitting multi-channel compression hearing aids. Br J Audiol 32:177–195PubMed

32.

Moore BCJ, Alcántara JI, Marriage JE (2001) Comparison of three procedures for initial fitting of compression hearing aids. I. Experienced users, fitted bilaterally. Br J Audiol 35:339–353PubMed

33.

Moore BCJ, Marriage JE, Alcántara JI, Glasberg BR (2005) Comparison of two adaptive procedures for fitting a multi-channel compression hearing aid. Int J Audiol 44:345–357PubMedCrossRef

34.

Nilsson M, Soli SD, Sullivan JA (1994) Development of the hearing in noise test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise. J Acoust Soc Am 95:1085–1099PubMedCrossRef

35.

Parsons JO, Clark CR (2002) Comparison of an ‘intuitive’ NHS hearing aid prescription method with DSL 4.1 targets for amplification. Int J Audiol 41:357–362PubMed

36.

Peters RW, Moore BC, Glasberg BR, Stone MA (2000) Comparison of the NAL-R and Cambridge formulae for the fitting of linear hearing aids. Br J Audiol 34:21–36PubMed

37.

Plomp R, Mimpen AM (1979) Improving the reliability of testing the speech reception threshold for sentences. Audiology 18:43–52PubMed

38.

Ricketts TA (1996) Fitting hearing aids to individual loudness-perception measures. Ear Hear 17:124–132PubMedCrossRef

39.

Sammeth CA, Peek BF, Bratt GW, Bess FH, Amberg SM (1993) Ability to achieve gain/frequency response and SSPL-90 under three prescription formulas with in-the-ear hearing aids. J Am Acad Audiol 4:33–41PubMed

40.

Smeds K (2004) Is normal or less than normal overall loudness preferred by first-time hearing aid users? Ear Hear 25:159–172PubMedCrossRef

41.

Stelmachowicz PG, Dalzell S, Peterson D, Kopun J, Lewis DE, Hoover BE (1998) A comparison of threshold-based strategies for nonlinear hearing aids. Ear Hear 19:131–138PubMedCrossRef

42.

The EuroQol Group (1990) EuroQol: a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 16:199–208CrossRef

43.

van den Brink RHS, Wit HP, Kempen GIJM, van Heuvelen MJG (1996) Attitude and help-seeking for hearing impairment. Br J Audiol 30:313–324PubMed

44.

Verschuure J (1994) Selektie van het hoortoestel. In: Kapteyn TS, Clemens A, Glazenburg BE, Joustra J (eds) Slechthorende en hoortoestel. De Leeuw Press, Rijnsburg, The Netherlands

45.

Versfeld NJ, Daalder L, Festen JM, Houtgast T (2000) Method for the selection of sentence materials for efficient measurement of the speech reception threshold. J Acoust Soc Am 107:1671–1684PubMedCrossRef

46.

Wagener K, Brand T, Kollmeier B (1999) Entwicklung und Evaluation eines Satztests für die deutsche Sprache I-III: Design, Optimierung und Evaluation des Oldenburger Satztests. Z Audiol 38(1–3):4–15. (44–56, 86–95)

47.

Ware JE, Sherbourne CD (1992) The MOS 36-item short form health survey (SF-36). Med Care 30:473–483PubMedCrossRef

48.

Wesselkamp M, Margolf-Hackl S, Kiessling J (2001) Comparison of two digital hearing instrument fitting strategies. Scand Audiol 30(Suppl 52):73–75CrossRef

49.

World Health Organization (1980) International classification of impairments, disabilities and handicaps. A manual of classification relating to the consequences of disease. World Health Organization, Geneva

50.

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

Title: Comparative studies on hearing aid selection and fitting procedures: a review of the literature
Authors: Mick Metselaar
Bert Maat
Hans Verschuure
Wouter A. Dreschler
Louw Feenstra
Publication date: 01-01-2008
Publisher: Springer-Verlag
Published in: European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology / Issue 1/2008
Print ISSN: 0937-4477
Electronic ISSN: 1434-4726
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-007-0494-7

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Comparative studies on hearing aid selection and fitting procedures: a review of the literature

Abstract

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2008

Headache induced by an arachnoid cyst of the sphenoid sinus: a rare diagnosis problem?

Head and neck cancer: the possible role of stem cells

Complications of acute frontal sinusitis: a retrospective study

Usefulness of CT scans in malignant external otitis: effective tool for the diagnosis, but of limited value in predicting outcome

Benign paroxysmal positional vertigo after dental surgery

Glottic versus supraglottic tumors: differential molecular profile