4.3 Article

Examination of differences between successful and unsuccessful elderly hearing aid candidates matched for age, hearing loss and gender

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AUDIOLOGY
Volume 42, Issue 7, Pages 432-441

Publisher

B C DECKER INC
DOI: 10.3109/14992020309080053

Keywords

hearing aids; elderly; aging; reliability

Funding

  1. NIA NIH HHS [R01-AG08293] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study examined group differences on a variety of measures for three groups of elderly hearing aid candidates matched for gender, age and hearing loss. These three groups were: (1) 26 candidates who declined amplification (non-adherents) (2) 24 individuals Who purchased hearing aids, but subsequently returned them (rejected HA); and (3) 26 who Purchased hearing aids and continued, aids for at least the first to use their hearing 6 months following delivery (accepted HA). Following demonstration of adequate reliability for these measures, using the non-adherents as the test-retest Study sample, group differences were examined for each pre-fit measure. The group of non-adherents who declined amplification differed from the two groups who purchased hearing aids on their scores for the Hearing Handicap Invertory for the Elderly (HHIE) and for several scales of the Communication Profile for the Hearing Impaired (CPHI) that assessed the individual's personal adjustment to hearing impairment. These findings were generally confirmed for the individual data, with the use of discriminant analysis. For the two groups who tried hearing aids. there were no group differences between those who retained them and those who did not. Discriminant analysis, however. indicated that those in the group who retained their (linear) hearing aids tended to have better finger dexterity and higher loudness discomfort levels than those who did not.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available