Observational studyJournal of the American Academy of Audiology2020
Comparison of In-Situ and Retrospective Self-Reports on Assessing Hearing Aid Outcomes.
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 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Hearing Aid Service Models, Technology, and Patient Outcomes: A Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA otolaryngology-- head & neck surgery · 2025Trial
- Matching laboratory and real-world listening environments with ecological momentary assessment improves prediction of speech perception.JASA express letters · 2026Article
- A Moderated Mediation Model Linking Speech-in-Noise Exposure, Speech Perception in Noise Ability, Loneliness, and Depression.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2026Article
- The benefits of in situ reporting: Experimental evidence from in-the-moment surveys of public transit riders.Behavior research methods · 2026Article
- Relationships Between Self-Report Hearing Scales, Listening Effort, and Speech Perception in Cocktail Party Noise in Hearing-Aided Patients.Audiology research · 2025Article
- Establishing a robust triangulation framework to explore the relationship between hearing loss and Parkinson's disease.NPJ Parkinson's disease · 2025Article
- Implementing Ecological Momentary Assessment in Audiological Research: Opportunities and Challenges.American journal of audiology · 2024Review
- Factors in the Effective Use of Hearing Aids among Subjects with Age-Related Hearing Loss: A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Would a comprehensive hearing aid fitting process lead to placebo effects compared to a simple process?Frontiers in audiology and otology · 2024Article
- Measuring Hearing Aid Satisfaction in Everyday Listening Situations: Retrospective and In Situ Assessments Complement Each Other.Journal of the American Academy of Audiology · 2024Observational
- 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
- Why Ecological Momentary Assessment Surveys Go Incomplete: When It Happens and How It Impacts Data.Journal of the American Academy of Audiology · 2021Observational
- Real-World Hearing Aid Usage Patterns and Smartphone Connectivity.Frontiers in digital health · 2021Article
- Daily-Life Fatigue Among Adolescents Who Are Hard of Hearing: An Ecological Momentary Assessment Study.Ear and hearingArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEcological momentary assessment (EMA) is a methodology involving repeated surveys to collect in-situ self-reports that describe respondents' current or recent experiences. Audiology literature comparing in-situ and retrospective self-reports is scarce. PURPOSE: To compare the sensitivity of in-situ and retrospective self-reports in detecting the outcome difference between hearing aid technologies, and to determine the association between in-situ and retrospective self-reports. RESEARCH
designAn observational study. STUDY SAMPLE: Thirty-nine older adults with hearing loss. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The study was part of a larger clinical trial that compared the outcomes of a prototype hearing aid (denoted as HA1) and a commercially available device (HA2). In each trial condition, participants wore hearing aids for 4 weeks. Outcomes were measured using EMA and retrospective questionnaires. To ensure that the outcome data could be directly compared, the Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit Profile was administered as an in-situ self-report (denoted as EMA-GHABP) and as a retrospective questionnaire (retro-GHABP). Linear mixed models were used to determine if the EMA- and retro-GHABP could detect the outcome difference between HA1 and HA2. Correlation analyses were used to examine the association between EMA- and retro-GHABP.
resultsFor the EMA-GHABP, HA2 had significantly higher (better) scores than HA1 in the GHABP subscales of benefit, residual disability, and satisfaction (
conclusionThe study suggests that in-situ self-reports collected using EMA could have a higher sensitivity than retrospective questionnaires. Therefore, EMA is worth considering in clinical trials that aim to compare the outcomes of different hearing aid technologies. The weak to moderate association between in-situ and retrospective self-reports suggests that these two types of measures assess different aspects of hearing aid outcomes.
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.