ArticleFrontiers in digital health2023
Reasons for ceiling ratings in real-life evaluations of hearing aids: the relationship between SNR and hearing aid ratings.
Article in Frontiers in digital health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Implementing Ecological Momentary Assessment in Audiological Research: Opportunities and Challenges.American journal of audiology · 2024Review
- 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: In past Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA) studies, hearing aid outcome ratings have often been close to ceiling. Methods: To analyze the underlying reasons for the very positive ratings, we conducted a study with 17 experienced hearing aid wearers who were fitted with study hearing aids. The acceptable noise level and the noise level where participants were unable to follow speech were measured. The participants then rated hearing aid satisfaction, speech understanding and listening effort for pre-defined SNRs between -10 and +20 dB SPL in the laboratory. These ratings were compared to ratings of a two-week EMA trial. Additionally, estimates of SNRs were collected from hearing aids during the EMA trial and we assessed whether the participants experienced those SNRs rated poorly in the laboratory in real life. Results: The results showed that for hearing aid satisfaction and speech understanding, the full rating scale was used in the laboratory, while the ratings in real life were strongly skewed towards the positive end of the scale. In the laboratory, SNRs where participants indicated they could not follow the narrator ("unable to follow" noise level) were rated clearly better than the lowest possible ratings. This indicates that very negative ratings may not be applicable in real-life testing. The lower part of the distribution of real-life SNR estimates was related to participants' individual "unable to follow" noise levels and the SNRs which were rated poorly in the laboratory made up less than 10% of the speech situations experienced in real life. Discussion: This indicates that people do not seem to frequently experience listening situations at SNRs where they are dissatisfied with their hearing aids and this could be the reason for the overly positive hearing aid outcome ratings in EMA studies. It remains unclear to what extent the scarcity of such situations is due lack of encounters or intentional avoidance.
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.