Test of the Assumptions Underlying Comparative Hearing Aid Evaluations Comparative hearing aid evaluations using NU-6 monosyllabic word lists were administered to adults with predominately high-frequency sensorineural hearing impairments who were randomly assigned to one of two experiments. In the first, three instruments were used that were electroacoustically similar and appropriate to the patients' hearing losses. In the second, the ... Reports
Reports  |   August 01, 1983
Test of the Assumptions Underlying Comparative Hearing Aid Evaluations
 
Author Notes
Article Information
Reports   |   August 01, 1983
Test of the Assumptions Underlying Comparative Hearing Aid Evaluations
Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, August 1983, Vol. 48, 264-273. doi:10.1044/jshd.4803.264
History: Received August 27, 1982 , Accepted January 6, 1983
 
Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, August 1983, Vol. 48, 264-273. doi:10.1044/jshd.4803.264
History: Received August 27, 1982; Accepted January 6, 1983

Comparative hearing aid evaluations using NU-6 monosyllabic word lists were administered to adults with predominately high-frequency sensorineural hearing impairments who were randomly assigned to one of two experiments. In the first, three instruments were used that were electroacoustically similar and appropriate to the patients' hearing losses. In the second, the three hearing aids employed were electroacoustically quite different. Following an initial comparative hearing aid evaluation, the patients used the instruments during a trial-use week after which they ranked the aids in terms of benefit provided in daily communication. Following the trial-use week, the comparative hearing aid evaluation was repeated. The results suggest that significant interaid performance differences on the hearing aid evaluation are not likely to occur very often when the aids being evaluated are relatively homogeneous electroacoustically. In contrast, when electroacoustically heterogeneous instruments are evaluated, significant performance differences may occur frequently. Under such circumstance, however, the same instrument(s) would likely provide the best performance to most patients. The results further suggest that the reliability of standard monosyllabic word lists may not be adequate to detect typical interaid differences that occur in a comparative hearing aid evaluation and that the performance hierarchy is likely to change as the patient adjusts amplification. Finally, the comparative hearing aid evaluation will not be a good predictor of success in daily communication unless relatively large performance differences exist among the instruments.

Order a Subscription
Pay Per View
Entire Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders content & archive
24-hour access
This Article
24-hour access