Predicting Individual Hearing-Aid Preference From Self-Reported Listening Experiences in Daily Life

Jeppe H. Christensen,Johanne Rumley,Juan Camilo Gil-Carvajal,Helen Whiston,Melanie Lough,Gabrielle H. Saunders
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/aud.0000000000001520
2024-05-25
Ear & Hearing
Abstract:Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA) and retrospective hearing questionnaires like the Speech Spatial Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ) provide insights into real-world hearing-aid use and outcomes that are unavailable from each in isolation ( Wu et al. 2020 ). Specifically, EMA responses provide in-situ information about real-life listening experiences, and immediate opinions about outcome and listening intent at a specific moment in time ( Shiffman et al. 2008 ; Wu et al. 2015 ; Timmer et al. 2018 ; Holube et al. 2020 ), while retrospective questionnaires provide insights into the way a user recalls hearing-aid function over time ( Robinson & Clore 2002 ) over a wide variety of listening situations ( Gatehouse & Noble 2004 ). Each approach has advantages and disadvantages (see later) but likewise, each can play a different role in understanding opinions about a hearing aid and assist in the choice of hearing-aid settings or model for a particular individual ( Lelic et al. 2024 ). For clinical purposes, it is therefore valuable to learn what combination of information from retrospective questionnaires and EMAs provide optimal clinical insights, face validity, and generalizability of outcomes so that time spent on clinical investigations and patient burden can be minimized. In addition to this, today's technology allows for seamless recording of objective environmental data, such as ambient acoustic characteristics, which can potentially help contextualize EMA outcomes ( Williger & Lang 2015 ; Christensen et al. 2021 ; Yellamsetty et al. 2021 ; Hart et al. 2022 ). However, EMA can be problematic because the process is invasive and burdensome to participants, necessitates a mobile phone, and can lead to biased sampling of situations due to a lack of willingness or it being inappropriate to respond to EMAs in certain situations ( Schinkel-Bielefeld et al. 2020 ). Retrospective questionnaires, on the other hand are less invasive and burdensome, but they rely on recollection and thus encounter recency biases and recall issues ( Bradburn et al. 1987 ; Stone & Shiffman 2002 ).
otorhinolaryngology,audiology & speech-language pathology
What problem does this paper attempt to address?