Hearing Impairment and Physical Activity and Physical Functioning in Older Adults: Baseline Results From the ACHIEVE Trial.

BACKGROUND: Hearing loss is associated with restricted physical activity (PA) and impaired physical functioning, yet the relationship between severity of hearing impairment (HI) and novel PA measures in older adults with untreated HI is not well understood. METHODS: Analyses included 845 participants aged ≥70 years (mean = 76.6 years) with a better-hearing ear pure-tone average (PTA) ≥30 and <70 dB in the Aging and Cognitive Health Evaluation in Elders (ACHIEVE) study who wore an ActiGraph accelerometer for 7 days. Physical functioning measures included grip strength and the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB). Linear regression models estimated the association by HI level (moderate or greater [PTA ≥ 40 dB] vs mild [PTA < 40 dB]) and continuous hearing with total daily activity counts, active minutes/day, activity fragmentation, grip strength, and gait speed. Logistic regression models estimated odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of poor performance on the SPPB (≤6) and its subtests (≤2). Mixed-effects models estimated differences by HI level in activity by time of day. RESULTS: Participants with moderate or greater HI had poorer physical functioning, particularly balance (OR = 2.17, 95% CI = 1.29-3.67), versus those with mild impairment. There was no association of HI level with activity quantities or fragmentation. For diurnal patterns of activity, participants with moderate or greater HI had fewer activity counts in the afternoon (12:00 pm -05:59 pm). CONCLUSIONS: Older adults with worse hearing had shifted diurnal patterns and poorer balance performance. Exercise programs should be tailored to older adults with different levels of HI to maintain PA and physical functioning, particularly balance control.

Recruitment and baseline data of the Aging and Cognitive Health Evaluation in Elders (ACHIEVE) study: A randomized trial of a hearing loss intervention for reducing cognitive decline.

INTRODUCTION: Hearing loss is highly prevalent among older adults and independently associated with cognitive decline. The Aging and Cognitive Health Evaluation in Elders (ACHIEVE) study is a multicenter randomized control trial (partially nested within the infrastructure of an observational cohort study, the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities [ARIC] study) to determine the efficacy of best-practice hearing treatment to reduce cognitive decline over 3 years. The goal of this paper is to describe the recruitment process and baseline results. METHODS: Multiple strategies were used to recruit community-dwelling 70-84-year-old participants with adult-onset hearing loss who were free of substantial cognitive impairment from the parent ARIC study and de novo from the surrounding communities into the trial. Participants completed telephone screening, an in-person hearing, vision, and cognitive screening, and a comprehensive hearing assessment to determine eligibility. RESULTS: Over a 24-month period, 3004 telephone screenings resulted in 2344 in-person hearing, vision, and cognition screenings and 1294 comprehensive hearing screenings. Among 1102 eligible, 977 were randomized into the trial (median age = 76.4 years; 53.5% female; 87.8% White; 53.3% held a Bachelor's degree or higher). Participants recruited through the ARIC study were recruited much earlier and were less likely to report hearing loss interfered with their quality of life relative to participants recruited de novo from the community. Minor differences in baseline hearing or health characteristics were found by recruitment route (i.e., ARIC study or de novo) and by study site. DISCUSSION: The ACHIEVE study successfully completed enrollment over 2 years that met originally projected rates of recruitment. Substantial operational and scientific efficiencies during study startup were achieved through embedding this trial within the infrastructure of a longstanding and well-established observational study. Highlights: The ACHIEVE study tests the effect of hearing intervention on cognitive decline.The study is partially nested within an existing cohort study.Over 2 years, 977 participants recruited and enrolled.Eligibility assessed by telephone and in-person for hearing, vision, and cognitive screening.The ACHIEVE study findings will have significant public health implications.

Description of the Baseline Audiologic Characteristics of the Participants Enrolled in the Aging and Cognitive Health Evaluation in Elders Study.

PURPOSE: The Aging and Cognitive Health Evaluation in Elders (ACHIEVE) study is a randomized clinical trial designed to determine the effects of a best-practice hearing intervention versus a successful aging health education control intervention on cognitive decline among community-dwelling older adults with untreated mild-to-moderate hearing loss. We describe the baseline audiologic characteristics of the ACHIEVE participants. METHOD: Participants aged 70-84 years (N = 977; Mage = 76.8) were enrolled at four U.S. sites through two recruitment routes: (a) an ongoing longitudinal study and (b) de novo through the community. Participants underwent diagnostic evaluation including otoscopy, tympanometry, pure-tone and speech audiometry, speech-in-noise testing, and provided self-reported hearing abilities. Baseline characteristics are reported as frequencies (percentages) for categorical variables or medians (interquartiles, Q1-Q3) for continuous variables. Between-groups comparisons were conducted using chi-square tests for categorical variables or Kruskal-Wallis test for continuous variables. Spearman correlations assessed relationships between measured hearing function and self-reported hearing handicap. RESULTS: The median four-frequency pure-tone average of the better ear was 39 dB HL, and the median speech-in-noise performance was a 6-dB SNR loss, indicating mild speech-in-noise difficulty. No clinically meaningful differences were found across sites. Significant differences in subjective measures were found for recruitment route. Expected correlations between hearing measurements and self-reported handicap were found. CONCLUSIONS: The extensive baseline audiologic characteristics reported here will inform future analyses examining associations between hearing loss and cognitive decline. The final ACHIEVE data set will be publicly available for use among the scientific community. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.24756948.

Hearing loss and cognition: A protocol for ensuring speech understanding before neurocognitive assessment.

INTRODUCTION: Many neurocognitive evaluations involve auditory stimuli, yet there are no standard testing guidelines for individuals with hearing loss. The ensuring speech understanding (ESU) test was developed to confirm speech understanding and determine whether hearing accommodations are necessary for neurocognitive testing. METHODS: Hearing was assessed using audiometry. The probability of ESU test failure by hearing status was estimated in 2679 participants (mean age: 81.4 ± 4.6 years) using multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: Only 2.2% (N = 58) of participants failed the ESU test. The probability of failure increased with hearing loss severity; similar results were observed for those with and without mild cognitive impairment or dementia. DISCUSSION: The ESU test is appropriate for individuals who have variable degrees of hearing loss and cognitive function. This test can be used prior to neurocognitive testing to help reduce the risk of hearing loss and compromised auditory access to speech stimuli causing poorer performance on neurocognitive evaluation.

Feasibility and Assessment of a Hybrid Audiology Service Delivery Model for Older Adult Hearing Aid Users: A Pilot Study.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to provide insight for the feasibility and outcomes of hybrid (combination of in-person office and Internet-based appointments) audiology services. METHOD: This pilot included two phases. First, we surveyed audiologists regarding what elements of a best-practice, in-person delivery of a hearing intervention could be delivered via Internet-based appointments. Next, we piloted the feasibility and assessed outcomes of the procedures identified. Ten first-time hearing aid users aged 70 years and older were fit with Phonak Audeo M90-312T hearing aids. Two Internet-based follow-up appointments were completed using the myPhonak app. We administered the Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly-Screening Version (HHIE-S), the Client Oriented Scale of Improvement (COSI), the Quick Speech-in-Noise Test (QuickSIN), and real-ear aided responses (REARs) to determine whether participants experienced improvements on hearing-related outcomes. The Telehealth Acceptance Questionnaire (TAQ) and the Visit-Specific Satisfaction Questionnaire (VSQ-9) were administered to gauge comfort with telehealth and satisfaction with Internet-based appointments. RESULTS: Survey results revealed that after an initial in-person appointment, nearly all follow-up hearing intervention components could be delivered remotely. We performed Wilcoxon signed-ranks tests to determine if the baseline and outcome results differed for outcomes. Baseline scores improved after 6 weeks (ps = .02 and. 005 for QuickSIN and HHIE-S) for speech-in-noise performance and self-perceived hearing difficulties. REARs from 500 to 4000 Hz measured after 6 weeks did not differ from baseline (ps = .612 and .398 for the right and left ears), suggesting no significant deviation from prescriptive targets because of remote fitting adjustments. All participants reported improvement in COSI goals after the intervention. TAQ results suggested that comfort with telehealth improved after attending Internet-based appointments (p = .005). VSQ-9 results revealed no differences in reported patient satisfaction between in-person and Internet-based appointments. CONCLUSIONS: We were able to develop a feasible hybrid audiology service delivery model for older adults. Our results enhance the evidence base for the implementation of telehealth audiology services.

Development, assessment, and monitoring of audiologic treatment fidelity in the aging and cognitive health evaluation in elders (ACHIEVE) randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: Studies investigating hearing interventions under-utilise and under-report treatment fidelity planning, implementation, and assessment. This represents a critical gap in the field that has the potential to impede advancements in the successful dissemination and implementation of interventions. Thus, our objective was to describe treatment fidelity planning and implementation for hearing intervention in the multi-site Ageing and Cognitive Health Evaluation in Elders (ACHIEVE) randomised controlled trial. DESIGN: Our treatment fidelity plan was based on a framework defined by the National Institutes of Health Behaviour Change Consortium (NIH BCC), and included strategies to enhance study design, provider training, and treatment delivery, receipt, and enactment. STUDY SAMPLE: To assess the fidelity of the ACHIEVE hearing intervention, we distributed a checklist containing criteria from each NIH BCC core treatment fidelity category to nine raters. RESULTS: The ACHIEVE hearing intervention fidelity plan satisfied 96% of NIH BCC criteria. Our assessment suggested a need for including clear, objective definitions of provider characteristics and non-treatment aspects of intervention delivery in future fidelity plans. CONCLUSIONS: The ACHIEVE hearing intervention fidelity plan can serve as a framework for the application of NIH BCC fidelity strategies for future studies and enhance the ability of researchers to reliably implement evidence-based interventions.

The Hearing Intervention for the Aging and Cognitive Health Evaluation in Elders Randomized Control Trial: Manualization and Feasibility Study.

OBJECTIVES: This work describes the development of a manualized best-practice hearing intervention for older adults participating in the Aging and Cognitive Health Evaluation in Elders (ACHIEVE) randomized controlled clinical trial. Manualization of interventions for clinical trials is critical for assuring intervention fidelity and quality, especially in large multisite studies. The multisite ACHIEVE randomized controlled trial is designed to assess the efficacy of a hearing intervention on rates of cognitive decline in older adults. We describe the development of the manualized hearing intervention through an iterative process that included addressing implementation questions through the completion of a feasibility study (ACHIEVE-Feasibility). DESIGN: Following published recommendations for manualized intervention development, an iterative process was used to define the ACHIEVE-hearing intervention elements and create an initial manual. The intervention was then delivered within the ACHIEVE-Feasibility study using one-group pre-post design appropriate for assessing questions related to implementation. Participants were recruited from the Tampa, Florida area between May 2015 and April 2016. Inclusion criteria were cognitively healthy adults aged 70 to 89 with symmetrical mild-to-moderately severe sensorineural hearing loss. The ACHIEVE-Feasibility study sought to assess the implementation of the manualized hearing intervention by: (1) confirming improvement in expected outcomes were achieved including aided speech-in-noise performance and perception of disease-specific self-report measures; (2) determining whether the participants would comply with the intervention including session attendance and use of hearing aids; and (3) determining whether the intervention sessions could be delivered within a reasonable timeframe. RESULTS: The initial manualized intervention that incorporated the identified best-practice elements was evaluated for feasibility among 21 eligible participants and 9 communication partners. Post-intervention expected outcomes were obtained with speech-in-noise performance results demonstrating a significant improvement under the aided condition and self-reported measures showing a significant reduction in self-perceived hearing handicap. Compliance was excellent, with 20 of the 21 participants (95.2%) completing all intervention sessions and 19 (90.4%) returning for the 6-month post-intervention visit. Furthermore, self-reported hearing aid compliance was >8 hr/day, and the average daily hearing aid use from datalogging was 7.8 hr. Study completion was delivered in a reasonable timeframe with visits ranging from 27 to 85 min per visit. Through an iterative process, the intervention elements were refined, and the accompanying manual was revised based on the ACHIEVE-Feasibility study activities, results, and clinician and participant informal feedback. CONCLUSION: The processes for the development of a manualized intervention described here provide guidance for future researchers who aim to examine the efficacy of approaches for the treatment of hearing loss in a clinical trial. The manualized ACHIEVE-Hearing Intervention provides a patient-centered, yet standardized, step-by-step process for comprehensive audiological assessment, goal setting, and treatment through the use of hearing aids, other hearing assistive technologies, counseling, and education aimed at supporting self-management of hearing loss. The ACHIEVE-Hearing Intervention is feasible in terms of implementation with respect to verified expected outcomes, compliance, and reasonable timeframe delivery. Our processes assure intervention fidelity and quality for use in the ACHIEVE randomized controlled trial (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03243422).

Hearing Screening in the Community.

BACKGROUND: Adults typically wait 7-10 yr after noticing hearing problems before seeking help, possibly because they are unaware of the extent of their impairment. Hearing screenings, frequently conducted at health fairs, community events, and retirement centers can increase this awareness. To our knowledge, there are no published studies in which testing conditions and outcomes have been examined for multiple "typical screening events." PURPOSE: The purpose of this article is to report hearing screening outcomes for pure tones and self-report screening tests and to examine their relationship with ambient noise levels in various screening environments. STUDY SAMPLE: One thousand nine hundred fifty-four individuals who completed a hearing screening at one of 191 community-based screening events that took place in the Portland, OR, and Tampa, FL, metro areas. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The data were collected during the recruitment phase of a large multisite study. All participants received a hearing screening that consisted of otoscopy, pure-tone screening, and completion of the Hearing Handicap Inventory-Screening Version (HHI-S). In addition, ambient sound pressure levels were measured just before pure-tone testing. RESULTS: Many more individuals failed the pure-tone screening (n = 1,238) and then failed the HHI-S (n = 796). The percentage of individuals who failed the pure-tone screening increased linearly with age from <20% for ages <45 yr to almost 100% for individuals aged ≥85 yr. On the other hand, the percentage of individuals who failed the HHI-S remained unchanged at approximately 40% for individuals aged ≥55 yr. Ambient noise levels varied considerably across the hearing screening locations. They impacted the pure-tone screen failure rate but not the HHI-S failure rate. CONCLUSIONS: It is important to select screening locations with a quiet space for pure-tone screening, use headphones with good passive attenuation, measure sound levels regularly during hearing screening events, halt testing if ambient noise levels are high, and/or alert individuals to the possibility of a false-positive screening failure. The data substantiate prior findings that the relationship between pure-tone sensitivity and reported hearing loss changes with age. Although it might be possible to develop age-specific HHI-S failure criteria to adjust for this, such an endeavor is not recommended because perceived difficulties are the best predictor of hearing health behaviors. Instead, it is proposed that a public health focus on education about hearing and hearing loss would be more effective.

A Randomized Controlled Trial to Evaluate Approaches to Auditory Rehabilitation for Blast-Exposed Veterans with Normal or Near-Normal Hearing Who Report Hearing Problems in Difficult Listening Situations.

BACKGROUND: Blast exposure is a major source of injury among Service members in the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts. Many of these blast-exposed veterans report hearing-related problems such as difficulties understanding speech in noise and rapid speech, and following instructions and long conversations that are disproportionate to their measured peripheral hearing sensitivity. Evidence is mounting that these complaints result from damage to the central auditory processing system. PURPOSE: To evaluate the effectiveness of audiological rehabilitative interventions for blast-exposed veterans with normal or near-normal peripheral hearing and functional hearing difficulties. RESEARCH DESIGN: A randomized controlled trial with four intervention arms. STUDY SAMPLE: Ninety-nine blast-exposed veterans with normal or near-normal peripheral hearing who reported functional hearing difficulties. INTERVENTION: Four interventions were compared: compensatory communication strategies (CCS) education, CCS and use of a personal frequency modulation system (FM + CCS), CCS and use of an auditory training program (AT + CCS), and use of all three interventions combined (FM + AT + CCS). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: All participants tested before, and immediately following an 8-week intervention period. The primary outcome measures upon which the study was powered assessed speech understanding in noise and self-reported psychosocial impacts of the intervention. In addition, auditory temporal processing, auditory working memory, allocation of attention, and hearing and cognitive self-report outcomes were assessed. RESULTS: Use of FM + CCS resulted in significant benefit for speech understanding in noise and self-reported hearing benefits, and FM + AT + CCS provided more self-reported cognitive benefits than FM + CCS, AT + CCS, or CCS. Further, individuals liked and reported using the FM system, but there was poor adherence to and high attrition among individuals assigned to receive AT. CONCLUSIONS: It is concluded that a FM system (or remote microphone via Bluetooth system) is an effective intervention for blast-exposed veterans with normal or near-normal hearing and functional hearing difficulties and should be routinely considered as an intervention approach for this population when possible.

Examination of Individual Differences in Outcomes From a Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial Comparing Formal and Informal Individual Auditory Training Programs.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine if patient characteristics or clinical variables could predict who benefits from individual auditory training. METHOD: A retrospective series of analyses were performed using a data set from a large, multisite, randomized controlled clinical trial that compared the treatment effects of at-home auditory training programs in bilateral hearing aid users. The treatment arms were (a) use of the 20-day computerized Listening and Communication Enhancement program, (b) use of the 10-day digital versatile disc Listening and Communication Enhancement program, (c) use of a placebo "books-on-tape" training, and (d) educational counseling (active control). Multiple linear regression models using data from 263 participants were conducted to determine if patient and clinical variables predicted short-term improvement on word-recognition-in-noise abilities, self-reported hearing handicap, and self-reported hearing problems. RESULTS: Baseline performance significantly predicted performance on each variable, explaining 11%-17% of the variance in improvement. The treatment arm failed to emerge as a significant predictor with other clinical variables explaining less than 9% of the variance. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that hearing aid users who have poorer aided word-recognition-in-noise scores and greater residual activity limitations and participation restrictions will show the largest improvement in these areas.

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.

Connected Audiological Rehabilitation: 21st Century Innovations.

BACKGROUND: Tele-audiology provides a means to offer audiologic rehabilitation (AR) in a cost-, resource-, and time-effective manner. If designed appropriately, it also has the capability of personalizing rehabilitation to the user in terms of content, depth of detail, etc., thus permitting selection of the best content for a particular individual. Synchronous/real-time data collection, store and forward telehealth, remote monitoring and mobile health using smartphone applications have each been applied to components of audiologic rehabilitation intervention (sensory management, instruction in the use of technology and control of the listening environment, perceptual and communication strategies training, and counseling). In this article, the current state of tele-audiological rehabilitation interventions are described and discussed. RESULTS: The provision of AR via tele-audiology potentially provides a cost-effective mechanism for addressing barriers to the routine provision of AR beyond provisions of hearing technology. Furthermore, if designed appropriately, it has the capability of personalizing rehabilitation to the user in terms of content, depth of detail, etc., thus permitting selection of the best content for a particular individual. However, effective widespread implementation of tele-audiology will be dependent on good education of patients and clinician alike, and researchers must continue to examine the effectiveness of these new approaches to AR in order to ensure clinicians provide effective evidence-based rehabilitation to their patients. CONCLUSIONS: While several barriers to the widespread use of tele-audiology for audiologic rehabilitation currently exist, it is concluded that through education of patients and clinicians alike, it will gain greater support from practitioners and patients over time and will become successfully and widely implemented.

Auditory difficulties in blast-exposed Veterans with clinically normal hearing.

UNLABELLED: Vast numbers of blast-injured Operation Iraqi Freedom/Operation Enduring Freedom/Operation New Dawn personnel report postconcussive symptoms that include headache, dizziness, poor memory, and difficulty concentrating. In addition, many report hearing problems, such as difficulty understanding speech in noise, yet have no measureable peripheral auditory deficits. In this article, self-report and performance-based measures were used to assess 99 blast-exposed Veterans. All participants reported auditory problems in difficult listening situations but had clinically normal hearing. Participants' scores on self-report questionnaires of auditory difficulties were more similar to scores of older individuals with hearing impairment than to those of younger individuals with normal hearing. Participants showed deficits relative to published normative data on a number of performance-based tests that have demonstrated sensitivity to auditory processing deficits. There were several measures on which more than the expected number of participants (15.9%) performed one or more standard deviations below the mean. These were assessments of speech understanding in noise, binaural processing, temporal resolution, and speech segregation. Performance was not universally poor, with approximately 53% of participants performing abnormally on between 3 and 6 of the 10 measures. We concluded that participants exhibited task-specific deficits that add to the evidence suggesting that blast injury results in damage to the central auditory system. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov; Approaches to Auditory Rehabilitation for Mild Traumatic Brain Injury (mTBI); NCT00930774; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00930774?term=NCT00930774&rank=1.

Perceptions of speech-language pathologists linked to evidence-based practice use in skilled nursing facilities.

PURPOSE: This study explored whether perceptions of evidence or organizational context were associated with the use of external memory aids with residents with dementia in skilled nursing facilities (SNFs). METHOD: A survey design, supplemented by a small sample of exploratory interviews, was completed within the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services framework. Ninety-six speech-language pathologists (SLPs) and 68 facility rehabilitation directors (FRDs) completed the Organizational Readiness to Change Assessment (Helfrich, Li, Sharp, & Sales, 2009) in relationship to the use of external memory aids. Five SLPs completed an interview exploring perceptions of evidence and context in relationship to memory aid use. RESULTS: SLPs and FRDs had favorable perceptions of evidence supporting memory aids. FRDs perceived the organizational context of the SNF more favorably than SLPs. SLP participants used external memory aids in the past 6 months in 45.89% of cases of residents with dementia. For SLP participants, a 26% (p < .05) increase of external memory aid use was associated with every 1-unit change in favor of the evidence. Interview data revealed barriers to external memory aid implementation. CONCLUSIONS: Part of evidence-based practice implementation may be influenced by clinician perceptions. Efforts to increase implementation of external memory aids in SNFs should address these clinician perceptions.

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.

Older adults and hearing help-seeking behaviors.

PURPOSE: To review the current literature on help seeking for hearing health care among older adults. METHOD: The authors conducted a literature review regarding help seeking for hearing-related communication difficulties as well as for other chronic medical conditions. RESULTS: Untreated hearing loss can lead to numerous negative secondary consequences; uptake and use of hearing aids remain low, despite the fact that hearing aids provide an effective treatment option for older adults with hearing loss. The authors describe models relevant to understanding the help-seeking and decision-making behaviors of older adults with hearing loss and discuss recommendations for future research. CONCLUSION: Because of the considerable overlap in factors associated with help-seeking behaviors across chronic medical conditions and because help-seeking behaviors are complex, help seeking should be examined within the framework of a multifactorial model, such as the health belief model or the transtheoretical stages of change model.

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.

Initial-fit approach versus verified prescription: comparing self-perceived hearing aid benefit.

BACKGROUND: Despite evidence suggesting inaccuracy in the default fittings provided by hearing aid manufacturers, the use of probe-microphone measures for the verification of fitting accuracy is routinely used by fewer than half of practicing audiologists. PURPOSE: The present study examined whether self-perception of hearing aid benefit, as measured through the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB; Cox and Alexander, 1995), differed as a function of hearing aid fitting method, specifically, manufacturer's initial-fit approach versus a verified prescription. The prescriptive fit began at NAL-NL1 targets, with adjustments based on participant request. Each of the two fittings included probe-microphone measurement. RESEARCH DESIGN: A counterbalanced, cross-over, repeated-measures, single-blinded design was utilized to address the research objectives. STUDY SAMPLE: Twenty-two experienced hearing aid users from the general Bay Pines VA Healthcare System audiology clinic population were randomized into one of two intervention groups. INTERVENTION: At the first visit, half of the participants were fit with new hearing aids via the manufacturer's initial fit while the second half were fit to a verified prescription using probe-microphone measurement. After a wear period of 4-6 wk, the participants' hearing aids were refit via the alternate method and worn for an additional 4-6 wk. Participants were blinded to the method of fitting by utilizing probe-microphone measures with both approaches. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The APHAB was administered at baseline and at the end of each intervention trial. At the end of the second trial period, the participants were asked to identify which hearing aid fitting was "preferred." The APHAB data were subjected to a general linear model repeated-measures analysis of variance. RESULTS: For the three APHAB communication subscales (i.e., Ease of Communication, Reverberation, and Background Noise) mean scores obtained with the verified prescription were higher than those obtained with the initial-fit approach, indicating greater benefit with the former. The main effect of hearing aid fitting method was statistically significant [F (1, 21) = 4.69, p = 0.042] and accounted for 18% of the variance in the data (partial eta squared = 0.183). Although the mean benefit score for the APHAB Aversiveness subscale was also better (i.e., lower) for the verified prescription than the initial-fit approach, the difference was not statistically significant. Of the 22 participants, 7 preferred their hearing aids programmed to initial-fit settings and 15 preferred their hearing aids programmed to the verified prescription. CONCLUSIONS: The data support the conclusion that hearing aids fit to experienced hearing aid wearers using a verified prescription are more likely to yield better self-perceived benefit as measured by the APHAB than if fit using the manufacturer's initial-fit approach.

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.