Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33105255›Full record

ArticleEar and hearing

The Quest for Ecological Validity in Hearing Science: What It Is, Why It Matters, and How to Advance It.

Gitte Keidser, Graham Naylor, Douglas S Brungart, Andreas Caduff, Jennifer Campos, Simon Carlile, Mark G Carpenter, Giso Grimm, Volker Hohmann, Inga Holube and 6 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ear and hearing. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 69 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
69citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

69 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. "Re: efficacy of a structured auditory training module in older individuals with hearing loss: a randomized control trail".European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

9 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors.

Gitte KeidserEriksholm Research Centre, Oticon A/S, Snekkersten, Denmark.
Graham NaylorHearing Sciences-Scottish Section, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Glasgow, United Kingdom.
Douglas S BrungartWalter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, USA.
Andreas CaduffApplied Physics Department and the Center for Electromagnetic Research and Characterization, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel.
Jennifer CamposKITE-Toronto Rehabilitation Institute, University Health Network, Toronto, Canada.
Simon CarlileSchool of Medical Sciences, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Mark G CarpenterSchool of Kinesiology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
Giso GrimmAuditory Signal Processing and Cluster of Excellence "Hearing4all", Department of Medical Physics and Acoustics, University of Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Germany.
Volker HohmannAuditory Signal Processing and Cluster of Excellence "Hearing4all", Department of Medical Physics and Acoustics, University of Oldenburg, Oldenburg, Germany.
Inga HolubeInstitute of Hearing Technology and Audiology, Jade University of Applied Sciences, and Cluster of Excellence "Hearing4all", Oldenburg, Germany.
Stefan LaunerDepartment of Science and Technology, Sonova AG, Staefa, Switzerland.
Thomas LunnerEriksholm Research Centre, Oticon A/S, Snekkersten, Denmark.
Ravish MehraFacebook Reality Labs Research, Redmond, Washington, DC, USA.
Frances RapportAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.
Malcolm SlaneyMachine Hearing Group, Google Research, Mountain View, California, USA.
Karolina SmedsORCA Europe, WS Audiology, Stockholm, Sweden.

Funding

Chief Scientist Office [UK]Medical Research Council MR/S003576/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Ecological validity is a relatively new concept in hearing science. It has been cited as relevant with increasing frequency in publications over the past 20 years, but without any formal conceptual basis or clear motive. The sixth Eriksholm Workshop was convened to develop a deeper understanding of the concept for the purpose of applying it in hearing research in a consistent and productive manner. Inspired by relevant debate within the field of psychology, and taking into account the World Health Organization's International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health framework, the attendees at the workshop reached a consensus on the following definition: "In hearing science, ecological validity refers to the degree to which research findings reflect real-life hearing-related function, activity, or participation." Four broad purposes for striving for greater ecological validity in hearing research were determined: A (Understanding) better understanding the role of hearing in everyday life; B (Development) supporting the development of improved procedures and interventions; C (Assessment) facilitating improved methods for assessing and predicting ability to accomplish real-world tasks; and D (Integration and Individualization) enabling more integrated and individualized care. Discussions considered the effects of variables and phenomena commonly present in hearing-related research on the level of ecological validity of outcomes, supported by examples from a few selected outcome domains and for different types of studies. Illustrated with examples, potential strategies were offered for promoting a high level of ecological validity in a study and for how to evaluate the level of ecological validity of a study. Areas in particular that could benefit from more research to advance ecological validity in hearing science include: (1) understanding the processes of hearing and communication in everyday listening situations, and specifically the factors that make listening difficult in everyday situations; (2) developing new test paradigms that include more than one person (e.g., to encompass the interactive nature of everyday communication) and that are integrative of other factors that interact with hearing in real-life function; (3) integrating new and emerging technologies (e.g., virtual reality) with established test methods; and (4) identifying the key variables and phenomena affecting the level of ecological validity to develop verifiable ways to increase ecological validity and derive a set of benchmarks to strive for.

Indexed as

HearingHearing AidsAuditory PerceptionComprehensionHumansResearch Design

Identifiers

PMID33105255
PMCPMC7676618

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.