Observational studyJournal of the American Academy of Audiology2020
Test-Retest Reliability of Ecological Momentary Assessment in Audiology Research.
Observational study in Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Measuring Hearing Aid Satisfaction in Everyday Listening Situations: Retrospective and In Situ Assessments Complement Each Other.Journal of the American Academy of Audiology · 2024Observational
- Reliability of Data Collected via Ecological Momentary Assessment on the Example of FeverApp Registry.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Reasons for ceiling ratings in real-life evaluations of hearing aids: the relationship between SNR and hearing aid ratings.Frontiers in digital health · 2023Article
- Personal Characteristics Associated with Ecological Momentary Assessment Compliance in Adult Cochlear Implant Candidates and Users.Journal of the American Academy of Audiology · 2022Observational
- Statistical Considerations for Analyzing Ecological Momentary Assessment Data.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2022Review
- Investigating Real-World Benefits of High-Frequency Gain in Bone-Anchored Users with Ecological Momentary Assessment and Real-Time Data Logging.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
- Why Ecological Momentary Assessment Surveys Go Incomplete: When It Happens and How It Impacts Data.Journal of the American Academy of Audiology · 2021Observational
- Daily-Life Fatigue Among Adolescents Who Are Hard of Hearing: An Ecological Momentary Assessment Study.Ear and hearingArticle
- The Effects of Daily Life Auditory Demands on Listening Effort, Affect, and Fatigue as a Function of Hearing Loss.Trends in hearingArticle
- Beyond the Moment: How EMA Reporting Periods Affect Sampled Situations and Sensitivity to Hearing Aid Differences.Trends in hearingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEcological momentary assessment (EMA) is a methodology involving repeated surveys to collect in situ data that describe respondents' current or recent experiences and related contexts in their natural environments. Audiology literature investigating the test-retest reliability of EMA is scarce. PURPOSE: This article examines the test-retest reliability of EMA in measuring the characteristics of listening contexts and listening experiences. RESEARCH
designAn observational study. STUDY SAMPLE: Fifty-one older adults with hearing loss. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The study was part of a larger study that examined the effect of hearing aid technologies. The larger study had four trial conditions and outcome was measured using a smartphone-based EMA system. After completing the four trial conditions, participants repeated one of the conditions to examine the EMA test-retest reliability. The EMA surveys contained questions that assessed listening context characteristics including talker familiarity, talker location, and noise location, as well as listening experiences including speech understanding, listening effort, loudness satisfaction, and hearing aid satisfaction. The data from multiple EMA surveys collected by each participant were aggregated in each of the test and retest conditions. Test-retest correlation on the aggregated data was then calculated for each EMA survey question to determine the reliability of EMA.
resultsAt the group level, listening context characteristics and listening experience did not change between the test and retest conditions. The test-retest correlation varied across the EMA questions, with the highest being the questions that assessed talker location (median
conclusionSeveral EMA questions yielded appropriate test-retest reliability results. The lower test-retest correlations for some EMA survey questions were likely due to fewer surveys completed by participants and poorly designed questions. Therefore, the present study stresses the importance of using validated questions in EMA. With sufficient numbers of surveys completed by respondents and with appropriately designed survey questions, EMA could have reasonable test-retest reliability in audiology research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.