Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparative studies on hearing aid selection and fitting procedures: a review of the literature

  • Review Article
  • Published:
European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Although a large number of fitting procedures have been developed and are nowadays generally applied in modern hearing aid fitting technology, little is known about their effectiveness in comparison with each other. This paper argues the need for comparative validation studies on hearing aid fitting procedures based on the design of a randomized clinical trial and carried out in a large-scale clinical population. These studies are hard to conduct but can provide detailed information on the various aspects of the rehabilitation with hearing aids. The design of several recently reported comparative studies of hearing aid fitting procedures will be reviewed. This gives rise to a number of comments on aspects like, study design, composition of the study population and definition of outcome measures rather than on the outcome or conclusions of these studies themselves.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Alcántara JI, Moore BCJ, Marriage JE (2004) Comparison of three procedures for initial fitting of compression hearing aids. II. Experienced users, fitted unilaterally. Int J Audiol 43:3–14

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. American National Standard (ANSI) (1973) American national standard method for coupler calibration of earphones. S3.7-1973. Rev. 1986

  3. Barton G, Bankart J, Davis A, Summerfield Q (2004) Comparing utility scores before and after hearing aid provision: results according to the EQ-5D, HUI3 and SF-6D. Appl Health Econ Health Policies 3:103–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bess FH (2000) The role of generic health-related quality of life measures in establishing audiological rehabilitation outcomes. Ear Hear 21(Suppl 4):74S–79S

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Carhart R (1946) Tests for selection of hearing aids. Laryngoscope 56:780–794

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Cornelisse LE, Seewald RC, Jamieson DG (1995) The input/output formula: a theoretical approach to the fitting of personal amplification devices. J Acoust Soc Am 97:1854–1864

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Cox RM (2003) Assessment of subjective outcome of hearing aid fitting: getting the client’s point of view. Int J Audiol 42:S90–S96

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Cox RM, Alexander GC (1991) Hearing aid benefit in everyday environments. Ear Hear 12:127–139

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Cox RM, Alexander GC (1995) The abbreviated profile of hearing aid benefit. Ear Hear 16:176–186

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Dalton DS, Cruickshanks KJ, Klein BE, Klein R, Wiley TL, Nondahl DM (2003) The impact of hearing loss on quality of life in older adults. Gerontologist 43:661–668

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Dreschler WA, Verschuure H, Ludvigsen C, Westermann S (2001) ICRA noises: artificial noise signals with speech-like spectral and temporal properties for hearing instrument assessment. International collegium for rehabilitative audiology. Audiology 40:148–157

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Feeny D, Furlong W, Boyle M, Torrance GW (1995) Multi-attribute health status classification systems. Health utilities index. Pharmacoeconomics 7:490–502

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Gatehouse S (1993) Hearing aid evaluation: limitations of present procedures and future requirements. J Speech Lang Pathol Audiol Monograph Suppl 1:50–57

    Google Scholar 

  14. Gatehouse S (1999) A self-report outcome measure for the evaluation of hearing aid fittings and services. Health Bull 57:424–436

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Gatehouse S, Noble W (2004) The speech, spatial and qualities of hearing scale (ssq). Int J Audiol 43:85–99

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Gilson BS, Gilson JS, Bergner M, Bobbit RA, Kressel S, Pollard WE, Vessalago M (1975) The sickness impact profile: development of an outcome measure of health care. Am J Public Health 65:1304–1310

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Hagerman B (1982) Sentences for testing speech intelligibility in noise. Scand Audiol 13:57–63

    Google Scholar 

  18. Hagerman B (1984) Clinical measurements of speech reception threshold in noise. Scand Audiol 13:57–63

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Haggard MP, Foster JR, Iredale FE (1981) Use and benefit of postaural aids in sensory hearing loss. Scand Audiol 10:45–52

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Hamill TA, Barron TP (1992) Frequency response differences of four gain-equalized hearing aid prescription formulae. Audiology 31:87–94

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Hawkins D (1992) Prescriptive approaches to selection of gain and frequency response. In: Mueller HG, Hawkins DB, Northern JL (eds) Probe tube microphone measurements: hearing aid selection and assessment. Singular Publishing, San Diego

    Google Scholar 

  22. Humes L, Hackett T (1990) Comparison of frequency response and aided speech-recognition performance for hearing aids selected by three different prescriptive methods. J Am Acad Audiol 1:101–108

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. International Electrotechnical Commission (1973) IEC reference coupler for the measurement of hearing aids using earphones coupled to the ear by means of ear inserts, 2nd edn. IEC Publication 126, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  24. International Electrotechnical Commission (1981) Occluded ear simulator for the measurement of earphones coupled to the ear by ear inserts. IEC publication 711, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  25. Joore MA, Brunenberg DE, Chenault MN, Antheunis LJ (2003) Societal effects of hearing aid fitting among the moderately hearing impaired. Int J Audiol 42:152–160

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Keidser G, Grant F (2001) Comparing loudness normalization (IHAFF) with speech intelligibility maximization (NAL-NL1) when implemented in a two-channel device. Ear Hear 22:501–515

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Kiessling J, Schubert M, Archut A (1996) Adaptive fitting of hearing instruments by category loudness scaling (ScalAdapt). Scand Audiol 25:153–160

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Lunner T, Hellgren J, Arlinger S, Elberling C (1997) A digital filterbank hearing aid. Improving a prescriptive fitting with subjective adjustments. Scand Audiol 26:169–176

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Marriage JE, Moore BCJ, Alcántara JI (2004) Comparison of three procedures for initial fitting of compression hearing aids. III. Inexperienced versus experienced users. Int J Audiol 43:198–210

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. MacLeod A, Summerfield Q (1990) A procedure for measuring auditory and audio-visual speech-reception thresholds for sentences in noise: rationale, evaluation, and recommendations for use. Br J Audiol 24:29–43

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Moore BC, Alcántara JI, Glasberg BR (1998) Development and evaluation of a procedure for fitting multi-channel compression hearing aids. Br J Audiol 32:177–195

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Moore BCJ, Alcántara JI, Marriage JE (2001) Comparison of three procedures for initial fitting of compression hearing aids. I. Experienced users, fitted bilaterally. Br J Audiol 35:339–353

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Moore BCJ, Marriage JE, Alcántara JI, Glasberg BR (2005) Comparison of two adaptive procedures for fitting a multi-channel compression hearing aid. Int J Audiol 44:345–357

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Nilsson M, Soli SD, Sullivan JA (1994) Development of the hearing in noise test for the measurement of speech reception thresholds in quiet and in noise. J Acoust Soc Am 95:1085–1099

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Parsons JO, Clark CR (2002) Comparison of an ‘intuitive’ NHS hearing aid prescription method with DSL 4.1 targets for amplification. Int J Audiol 41:357–362

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Peters RW, Moore BC, Glasberg BR, Stone MA (2000) Comparison of the NAL-R and Cambridge formulae for the fitting of linear hearing aids. Br J Audiol 34:21–36

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Plomp R, Mimpen AM (1979) Improving the reliability of testing the speech reception threshold for sentences. Audiology 18:43–52

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Ricketts TA (1996) Fitting hearing aids to individual loudness-perception measures. Ear Hear 17:124–132

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Sammeth CA, Peek BF, Bratt GW, Bess FH, Amberg SM (1993) Ability to achieve gain/frequency response and SSPL-90 under three prescription formulas with in-the-ear hearing aids. J Am Acad Audiol 4:33–41

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Smeds K (2004) Is normal or less than normal overall loudness preferred by first-time hearing aid users? Ear Hear 25:159–172

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Stelmachowicz PG, Dalzell S, Peterson D, Kopun J, Lewis DE, Hoover BE (1998) A comparison of threshold-based strategies for nonlinear hearing aids. Ear Hear 19:131–138

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. The EuroQol Group (1990) EuroQol: a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 16:199–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. van den Brink RHS, Wit HP, Kempen GIJM, van Heuvelen MJG (1996) Attitude and help-seeking for hearing impairment. Br J Audiol 30:313–324

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Verschuure J (1994) Selektie van het hoortoestel. In: Kapteyn TS, Clemens A, Glazenburg BE, Joustra J (eds) Slechthorende en hoortoestel. De Leeuw Press, Rijnsburg, The Netherlands

    Google Scholar 

  45. Versfeld NJ, Daalder L, Festen JM, Houtgast T (2000) Method for the selection of sentence materials for efficient measurement of the speech reception threshold. J Acoust Soc Am 107:1671–1684

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Wagener K, Brand T, Kollmeier B (1999) Entwicklung und Evaluation eines Satztests für die deutsche Sprache I-III: Design, Optimierung und Evaluation des Oldenburger Satztests. Z Audiol 38(1–3):4–15. (44–56, 86–95)

    Google Scholar 

  47. Ware JE, Sherbourne CD (1992) The MOS 36-item short form health survey (SF-36). Med Care 30:473–483

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Wesselkamp M, Margolf-Hackl S, Kiessling J (2001) Comparison of two digital hearing instrument fitting strategies. Scand Audiol 30(Suppl 52):73–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. World Health Organization (1980) International classification of impairments, disabilities and handicaps. A manual of classification relating to the consequences of disease. World Health Organization, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  50. World Health Organization (2001) International classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF). World Health Organization, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Otolaryngology/Audiological Center, Erasmus Medical Center, Dr. Molewaterplein 40, 3015 GD, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

    Mick Metselaar, Hans Verschuure & Louw Feenstra

  2. Department of Otolaryngology/Audiology, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Bert Maat & Wouter A. Dreschler

Authors
  1. Mick Metselaar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bert Maat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hans Verschuure
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Wouter A. Dreschler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Louw Feenstra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mick Metselaar.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Metselaar, M., Maat, B., Verschuure, H. et al. Comparative studies on hearing aid selection and fitting procedures: a review of the literature. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 265, 21–29 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-007-0494-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-007-0494-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation