A comprehensive survey of hearing questionnaires: how many are there, what do they measure, and how have they been validated?

Akeroyd, Michael A.; Wright-Whyte, Kay; Holman, Jack A.; Whitmer, William M.

doi:10.1186/1745-6215-16-s1-p26

Cited by 15 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The self-report measures included in this review were described in relation to health status outcomes and the number of times each measure was cited in clinical studies. Consistent with previous reviews of self-report in hearing loss, a large number of self-report measures were identified ( Granberg et al, 2014 ; Akeroyd et al, 2015 ). Outcomes from these reviews showed that the majority of measures were not used repeatedly in clinical studies ( Granberg et al, 2014 ; Akeroyd et al, 2015 ; Barker et al, 2015 ).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 76%

Listening-Based Communication Ability in Adults With Hearing Loss: A Scoping Review of Existing Measures

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionHearing loss in adults has a pervasive impact on health and well-being. Its effects on everyday listening and communication can directly influence participation across multiple spheres of life. These impacts, however, remain poorly assessed within clinical settings. Whilst various tests and questionnaires that measure listening and communication abilities are available, there is a lack of consensus about which measures assess the factors that are most relevant to optimising auditory rehabilitation. This study aimed to map current measures used in published studies to evaluate listening skills needed for oral communication in adults with hearing loss.MethodsA scoping review was conducted using systematic searches in Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science and Google Scholar to retrieve peer-reviewed articles that used one or more linguistic-based measure necessary to oral communication in adults with hearing loss. The range of measures identified and their frequency where charted in relation to auditory hierarchies, linguistic domains, health status domains, and associated neuropsychological and cognitive domains.Results9121 articles were identified and 2579 articles that reported on 6714 discrete measures were included for further analysis. The predominant linguistic-based measure reported was word or sentence identification in quiet (65.9%). In contrast, discourse-based measures were used in 2.7% of the articles included. Of the included studies, 36.6% used a self-reported instrument purporting to measures of listening for communication. Consistent with previous studies, a large number of self-reported measures were identified (n = 139), but 60.4% of these measures were used in only one study and 80.7% were cited five times or fewer.DiscussionCurrent measures used in published studies to assess listening abilities relevant to oral communication target a narrow set of domains. Concepts of communicative interaction have limited representation in current measurement. The lack of measurement consensus and heterogeneity amongst the assessments limit comparisons across studies. Furthermore, extracted measures rarely consider the broader linguistic, cognitive and interactive elements of communication. Consequently, existing measures may have limited clinical application if assessing the listening-related skills required for communication in daily life, as experienced by adults with hearing loss.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 76%

Listening-Based Communication Ability in Adults With Hearing Loss: A Scoping Review of Existing Measures

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Numerous hearing disability instruments exist as illustrated by, Granberg et al, (2014a) who conducted a systematic review identifying 51 different patient-reported questionnaires that assess a range of hearing-related factors including disability, communication, and health-related quality of life. Of these, only 16 were used across several studies indicating that, at present, no instrument is accepted as a gold standard to assess the impact of hearing loss (Granberg et al, 2014a;Akeroyd et al, 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Content validity and readability of patient-reported questionnaire instruments of hearing disability

Manchaiah

Granberg

Grover

et al. 2019

International Journal of Audiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The current study evaluates the content validity (i.e., domains assessed) and readability levels of patient-reported questionnaire instruments using internationally recognized procedures and tools. Design: A review of the literature to identify candidate instruments and a synthesis of information including mapping extracted items onto the World Health Organization's-International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (WHO-ICF) and estimating readability. Study Sample: 14 patient-reported questionnaire instruments. Results: In general, item content focused on body function and on activity limitations and participation restrictions, with less emphasis on environmental and personal factors, and with different emphases across instruments. Many items did not clearly map onto any of the WHO-ICF categories (i.e., not coded items ranged from 3.7% to 39.1% across the 14 questionnaires). All 14 instruments exceeded the 6 th grade reading level when calculated according to the FORCAST formula which is appropriate for assessing a non-narrative text. Conclusions: Clinical assessment of hearing disability is only as comprehensive as the items covered by the chosen measurement instrument. Our findings confirmed the diversity of domains covered by hearing disability instruments, and gaps in assessment. Some concern is raised about whether the item content is appropriate for those respondents with poor literacy.

show abstract

“…Just one instrument had been used twice, and the HHIE, which was the most commonly used self-report measure, was only used 5 times in the studies included in their review. Another study identified 139 hearing-specific questionnaires (Akeroyd et al, 2015). The use of many questionnaires means that it is difficult to decide on the primary outcome measure for clinical trials and conduct meta-analyses for systematic reviews across studies (although we were able to do this for hearing-specific health-related quality of life using the HHIE).…”

Section: Commentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cochrane corner: hearing aids for mild to moderate hearing loss in adults

Brennan‐Jones

Weeda

Ferguson

2018

International Journal of Audiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This Cochrane corner features the review entitled "Hearing aids for mild to moderate hearing loss in adults" published in 2017. In their review, Ferguson et al. identified five randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving 825 participants, with moderate quality of evidence shown for all domains except adverse effects. Results showed a large beneficial effect of hearing aids on hearing-specific health-related quality of life and listening ability, and a small yet significant beneficial effect on overall health-related quality of life. Ferguson et al. concluded that according to the available evidence, hearing aids are effective at improving hearing-specific health-related quality of life, general health-related quality of life and listening ability in adults with mild to moderate hearing loss. The evidence supports the widespread provision of hearing aids as the first-line clinical management for those seeking help for hearing difficulties.

show abstract

A comprehensive survey of hearing questionnaires: how many are there, what do they measure, and how have they been validated?

Cited by 15 publications

References 0 publications

Listening-Based Communication Ability in Adults With Hearing Loss: A Scoping Review of Existing Measures

Listening-Based Communication Ability in Adults With Hearing Loss: A Scoping Review of Existing Measures

Content validity and readability of patient-reported questionnaire instruments of hearing disability

Cochrane corner: hearing aids for mild to moderate hearing loss in adults

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About