Clinical study of a digital vs an analogue hearing aid

Bille, Mikkel; Jensen, Anne-Marie; Kjærbøl, Erik; Vesterager, Vibeke; Sibelle, Philip; Nielsen, Henry

doi:10.1080/010503999424851

Cited by 27 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Development and validation of the measurement scales (ie, Cox and Alexander, 1999, 2001;Hosford-Dunn and Halpern, 2000;Humes et al, 2002b To investigate whether various factors relate to satisfaction, within-participant (4 studies) or between-participant comparisons (18 studies) were conducted in some studies. The within-participant comparisons were made between hearing aids (eg, Billie et al, 1999) or between certain intervals postfitting (eg, Humes et al, 2002a) and did not show a significant difference in satisfaction attributable to the type of hearing aids used or the duration of hearing aid use. Most betweenparticipant studies showed a significant difference attributable to the variables studied.…”

Section: Trends In Amplificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In two within-participant studies (Billie et al, 1999;Parving, 2003), the advantage of digital hearing aids over analog ones disappeared. Participants gave very similar satisfaction ratings to an analogue and a digital hearing aid.…”

Section: Wongmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, the two Kochkin studies reported more than 50% of users were generally satisfied with their hearing aids. Kochkin (1996a), and Billie et al (1999) have found that more than 66% of participants were satisfied or very satisfied. In the study by Scherr et al (1983), 91% of respondents rated hearing aid performance satisfactory or excellent.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…About 78% of dispensers reported digital instrument users were more satisfied than those wearing advanced nondigital instruments (Kirkwood, 2001). Greater user satisfaction was noted in sound quality, listening comfort, understanding speech in noise, understanding speech in quiet, and preventing feedback.In two within-participant studies (Billie et al, 1999;Parving, 2003), the advantage of digital hearing aids over analog ones disappeared. Participants gave very similar satisfaction ratings to an analogue and a digital hearing aid.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Hearing Aid Satisfaction: What Does Research from the Past 20 Years Say?

Wong

Hickson

McPherson

2003

Trends in Amplification

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hearing aid satisfaction is a pleasurable emotional experience as an outcome of an evaluation of performance. Many tools have been designed to measure the degree of satisfaction overall, or along the dimensions of cost, appearance, acoustic benefit, comfort, and service. Various studies have used these tools to examine the relationships between satisfaction and other factors. Findings are not always consistent across studies, but in general, hearing aid satisfaction has been found to be related to experience, expectation, personality and attitude, usage, type of hearing aids, sound quality, listening situations, and problems in hearing aid use. Inconsistent findings across studies and difficulties in evaluating the underlying relationships are probably caused by problems with the tools (eg, lack of validity) and the methods used to evaluate relationships (eg, correlation analyses evaluate association and not causal effect). Whether satisfaction changes over time and how service satisfaction contributes to device satisfaction are unclear. It is hoped that this review will help readers understand current satisfaction measures, how various factors affect satisfaction, and how the way satisfaction is measured may be improved to yield more reliable and valid data. IntroductionSatisfaction, according to the Oxford Advanced Dictionary (2000), is the good feeling that one has achieved something or when something that one wanted to happen does happen. Satisfaction has been variably described in the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (1996) as the fulfillment or gratification of a desire, a need, or an appetite; a pleasure or contentment derived from such gratification; and a source or means of gratification. Similarly, Oliver (1997) defines satisfaction as a pleasurable fulfillment in that the consumer feels that his or her needs, desires, and goals have been fulfilled in a pleasurable manner. Satisfaction is thus an emotional and pleasurable experience that confirms that something right has happened and provides a driving force to sustain the effort that yields this feeling.Tse (1988) defined consumer satisfaction as "the consumer's response to the evolution of the perceived discrepancy between prior expectations and the actual performance of the product as perceived after its consumption ." Oliver (1981) further described satisfaction "as an evaluation of the surprise inherent in a product acquisition and/or consumption experience. . . . Satisfaction is the emotional reaction following a disconfirmation experience (an evaluation of performance against expectations) which acts on the base attitude level and is consumption-specific." Overall, satisfaction is commonly described as a pleasurable emotional experience, as an outcome of product performance evaluation against expectations.Satisfaction is crucial to the whole hearing aid fitting process and its importance in audiology is evidenced by the fact that it is frequently included as a measure of outcome (Cox and Alexander, 1999;Dillon et al., 1999;...

show abstract

Section: Trends In Amplificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Wongmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Hearing Aid Satisfaction: What Does Research from the Past 20 Years Say?

Wong

Hickson

McPherson

2003

Trends in Amplification

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Dabei führen die subjektiv beschriebenen verbesserten Leistungen der digitalen Hörgeräte in den klassischen Methoden wie Aufblähkurve und Sprachaudiogramm (mit und ohne Stör-geräusch) mit Hörgeräten und Würz-burger Hörfeld nicht zu eindeutig besseren Ergebnissen [3,4,19].Vor allem im Hinblick auf die entstehenden Kosten ist eine eindeutige Dokumentation der Hörgeräteanpassungen jedoch unverzichtbar und im Hinblick auf eine "evidence based medicine" gefordert.…”

Section: Schlüsselwörterunclassified

Digitale vs. analoge Hörgeräte bei Kindern Haben wir eine Methode, die uns einen objektiven Vergleich ermöglicht?

Prinz

Nübel

Gross

2002

HNO

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Until now, the assumed benefits of digital hearing aids are reflected only in subjective descriptions by patients with hearing aids, but cannot be documented adequately by routine diagnostic methods. Seventeen schoolchildren with moderate severe bilateral symmetrical sensorineural hearing loss were examined in a double-blinded crossover study. Differences in performance between a fully digital hearing aid (DigiFocus compact/Oticon) and an analogous digitally programmable two-channel hearing aid were evaluated. Of the 17 children, 13 choose the digital and 4 the analogous hearing aid. In contrast to the clear subjective preferences for the fully digital hearing aid, we could not obtain any significant results with routine diagnostic methods. Using the "virtual hearing aid," a subjective comparison and speech recognition performance task yielded significant differences. The virtual hearing aid proved to be suitable for a direct comparison of different hearing aids and can be used for double-blind testing in a pediatric population.

show abstract