ArticleAmerican journal of audiology2025
Effective Design for Experiments on Small-Group Conversation: Insights From an Example Study.
Article in American journal of audiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sound is essential for observers to accurately assess unsuccessful conversations.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Building a Multi-Sensor Lab for Interactive Communication Research: Challenges, Workarounds, and Lessons Learned.Trends in hearingArticle
- A Comparative Analysis of a Perceptual Hearing Loss Assessment Dataset and the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health Core Sets for Hearing Loss.Advances in rehabilitation science and practiceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
With current advances in experimental techniques, there is a renewed interest in studying communication behavior, reflecting a desire to improve our understanding of hearing disability and the effects of treatment interventions at the level of in-the-moment behaviors. Group conversations are among the most challenging situations for people with hearing loss. Experiments on group conversations are increasingly common and disproportionately more demanding than dyad studies to design and execute. Thorough design and planning are critical for successfully capturing valid behavioral data, highlighting the value of sharing behind-the-scenes experiences with the researcher community. We have completed a laboratory study of four-way group conversations involving people with and without hearing loss. This article describes the goals and compromises involved in our design choices and evaluates their effectiveness through participant feedback. Aspects covered include contrasts and covariates, group composition and physical arrangement, participant characteristics, hearing devices, participant experience, physical environment, conversational task, and measurement modalities. Next, we briefly describe the experiment's execution. Finally, we analyze and discuss participants' feedback and reflect on what proved effective, what did not, and what design "worries" proved founded or unfounded. We hope thereby to provide support and inspiration for others who may be faced with similar design challenges. The main message is that such an experiment can be carried out successfully and in such a way that the behavioral and self-report data collected are likely to carry a relatively high degree of ecological validity while still supporting experimental and statistical control.
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.