Abstract:The SADL scale is both brief enough to be clinically acceptable and comprehensive enough to provide a valid assessment of an inherently multidimensional variable. Additional assessment is necessary to refine understanding of its test-retest properties, explore validity issues, and determine clinical, research, and administrative applications of the data.
“…Regarding validity of questionnaire, upon comparing satisfaction with hearing aids in daily life between NorthAmerican standard (Cox and Alexander, 1999) and the present study, we detected similar results, with slightly better response among Brazilian subjects. Percentiles 20 and 80 were equivalent with small difference in subscale of negative factors.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 83%
“…Results of overall score and subscales were equivalent to those of the original study (Cox and Alexander, 1999), reaching the same configuration in percentiles and in scales of higher or lower satisfaction levels.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 67%
“…The patients that acquired the hearing aids at that time but did not effectively use them (24 patients, which amounted to 7.6% of the total), did not join the study because the variable of interest that is part of the satisfaction rate depends on the point of view of the patient about systematic use of amplification (Cox and Alexander, 1999; Hosford-Dunn and Halpern, 2000) ( Figure 1). We excluded from the study subjects who were aged less than 18 years, who had acquired hearing aids within less than 6 weeks, because satisfaction should be measured only after one month post-fitting to ensure reliability of results (Humes, 2002-a); people with severe limitation of understanding and expressing to respond the questionnaire, and those that did not agree to participate.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The satisfaction rate with use of hearing aids in daily life was conducted using the questionnaire Satisfaction With Amplification in Daily Life -SADL, developed by Cox and Alexander (1999), with a sample of 257 subjects, mean age of 72 years, originated from an American medical center of the veterans, a community center for speech and hearing and a private clinic of hearing. SADL was validated by the authors in 2001.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Satisfaction is the measurement of auditory rehabilitation outcome that represents the most comprehensive combination of factors required to define final outcomes, given that the variable of interest represents the point of view of the patient and it is not related only with performance of hearing aid (Cox and Alexander, 1999), depending exclusively on people's perceptions and attitudes (Hosford-Dunn and Halpern, 2000).…”
The objective of the present study was to investigate satisfaction levels with hearing aids in daily life of Army Health System users, in addition to associated factors. Adults and seniors from 3 rd Military Area that had purchased hearing aids within the years 1998 and 2003 were selected to answer SADL (Satisfaction with Amplification in Daily Life) questionnaire. We excluded patients aged less than 18 years; those that had acquired hearing aid for less than 6 weeks, and patients with severe comprehension and expression limitation. The results showed that patients were considerably satisfied with the use of aids. There was lower satisfaction level with the negative factor subscale of SADL (Satisfaction with Amplification in Daily Life), especially in relation to telephone using. The factors that were associated with satisfaction were linked to the person and, mainly, to auditory rehabilitation. The data showed that, beyond the selection of the most technically appropriate hearing aid, it is highly important to follow auditory rehabilitation programs including home trials, guidance and counseling so that patients can have realistic expectations.
“…Regarding validity of questionnaire, upon comparing satisfaction with hearing aids in daily life between NorthAmerican standard (Cox and Alexander, 1999) and the present study, we detected similar results, with slightly better response among Brazilian subjects. Percentiles 20 and 80 were equivalent with small difference in subscale of negative factors.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 83%
“…Results of overall score and subscales were equivalent to those of the original study (Cox and Alexander, 1999), reaching the same configuration in percentiles and in scales of higher or lower satisfaction levels.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 67%
“…The patients that acquired the hearing aids at that time but did not effectively use them (24 patients, which amounted to 7.6% of the total), did not join the study because the variable of interest that is part of the satisfaction rate depends on the point of view of the patient about systematic use of amplification (Cox and Alexander, 1999; Hosford-Dunn and Halpern, 2000) ( Figure 1). We excluded from the study subjects who were aged less than 18 years, who had acquired hearing aids within less than 6 weeks, because satisfaction should be measured only after one month post-fitting to ensure reliability of results (Humes, 2002-a); people with severe limitation of understanding and expressing to respond the questionnaire, and those that did not agree to participate.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The satisfaction rate with use of hearing aids in daily life was conducted using the questionnaire Satisfaction With Amplification in Daily Life -SADL, developed by Cox and Alexander (1999), with a sample of 257 subjects, mean age of 72 years, originated from an American medical center of the veterans, a community center for speech and hearing and a private clinic of hearing. SADL was validated by the authors in 2001.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Satisfaction is the measurement of auditory rehabilitation outcome that represents the most comprehensive combination of factors required to define final outcomes, given that the variable of interest represents the point of view of the patient and it is not related only with performance of hearing aid (Cox and Alexander, 1999), depending exclusively on people's perceptions and attitudes (Hosford-Dunn and Halpern, 2000).…”
The objective of the present study was to investigate satisfaction levels with hearing aids in daily life of Army Health System users, in addition to associated factors. Adults and seniors from 3 rd Military Area that had purchased hearing aids within the years 1998 and 2003 were selected to answer SADL (Satisfaction with Amplification in Daily Life) questionnaire. We excluded patients aged less than 18 years; those that had acquired hearing aid for less than 6 weeks, and patients with severe comprehension and expression limitation. The results showed that patients were considerably satisfied with the use of aids. There was lower satisfaction level with the negative factor subscale of SADL (Satisfaction with Amplification in Daily Life), especially in relation to telephone using. The factors that were associated with satisfaction were linked to the person and, mainly, to auditory rehabilitation. The data showed that, beyond the selection of the most technically appropriate hearing aid, it is highly important to follow auditory rehabilitation programs including home trials, guidance and counseling so that patients can have realistic expectations.
Patient focus groups drawn from the target population are the preferred method of identifying content areas and domains for developing the item bank for a CI-specific QOL instrument. Compared with previously used methods, the use of patient-centered item development for a CI-specific QOL instrument will more accurately reflect patient experience and increase our understanding of how CI use affects QOL.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.