Development and validation of the effectiveness of the auditory rehabilitation scale

Bevan Yueh, Jennifer A. McDowell, Margaret Collins, Pamela E. Souza, Carl F. Loovis, Richard (Rick) Deyo

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

21 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: To develop a new scale of hearing-related function and quality of life in patients with hearing aids that addresses overlooked concerns, such as hearing-aid comfort, convenience, and cosmetic appearance, that may influence hearing-aid adherence while maintaining brevity and sensitivity to clinical change. Design: Prospective, multicenter instrument validation. Setting: Four diverse sites in Washington State, including 2 private practices, 1 university setting, and 1 Veterans Affairs hospital. Patients: Seventy-eight patients with hearing aids. Interventions: We created 2 modules in the Effectiveness of Auditory Rehabilitation (EAR) scale. The first module (Inner EAR) covers intrinsic hearing issues such as hearing in quiet and hearing in noise and is administered both before and after treatment. The second module (Outer EAR) covers extrinsic (hearing-aid related) issues such as comfort, appearance, and convenience and is administered after hearing-aid fitting. Main Outcome Measures: Both scales were developed and validated in 3 stages. Stage 1 used a qualitative approach from multiple data sources to develop preliminary instruments. Stage 2 used approaches from classic test theory to reduce the number of items and psychometrically validate the instruments. Stage 3 examined the responsiveness or sensitivity to clinical change. Results: A 10-item Inner EAR module and a 10-item Outer EAR module were created and validated. Internal consistency of individual domains (Cronbach α=0.85 and 0.72, respectively) and test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficients=0.76 and 0.81, respectively) were excellent. Evidence of construct validity included concurrent validity with other hearing scales and global visual analog scales, discriminant validity with dizziness handicap, correlation with hearing-aid adherence, and confirmatory factor analyses. Both scales had strong evidence of responsiveness (sensitivity to change), with higher effect sizes and Guyatt responsiveness statistics than the 2 widely used hearing scales in this study. The scales took an average of 5 minutes to complete. Conclusions: The EAR scale is a valid and reliable measure of the effectiveness of amplification in the treatment of sensorineural hearing loss. It addresses the range of issues that are of importance to hearing-aid patients. The scales have excellent psychometric properties, are more responsive than several widely used hearing scales, and are minimally burdensome for patients to complete. The EAR may be a valuable outcome measure in future studies of both existing hearing aids and newer hearing-aid technologies, such as bone-anchored aids or middle ear implants.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)851-856
Number of pages6
JournalArchives of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery
Volume131
Issue number10
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 2005
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Hearing Aids
Rehabilitation
Hearing
Ossicular Prosthesis
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Veterans Hospitals
Sensorineural Hearing Loss
Information Storage and Retrieval
Private Practice
antineoplaston A10
Dizziness
Visual Analog Scale
Psychometrics
Reproducibility of Results
Cosmetics
Statistical Factor Analysis
Noise
Quality of Life
Technology
Bone and Bones

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Otorhinolaryngology

Cite this

Development and validation of the effectiveness of the auditory rehabilitation scale. / Yueh, Bevan; McDowell, Jennifer A.; Collins, Margaret; Souza, Pamela E.; Loovis, Carl F.; Deyo, Richard (Rick).

In: Archives of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, Vol. 131, No. 10, 10.2005, p. 851-856.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Yueh, Bevan ; McDowell, Jennifer A. ; Collins, Margaret ; Souza, Pamela E. ; Loovis, Carl F. ; Deyo, Richard (Rick). / Development and validation of the effectiveness of the auditory rehabilitation scale. In: Archives of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery. 2005 ; Vol. 131, No. 10. pp. 851-856.
@article{8f919354ed7a48c1bf1c3fcad0a85699,
title = "Development and validation of the effectiveness of the auditory rehabilitation scale",
abstract = "Objective: To develop a new scale of hearing-related function and quality of life in patients with hearing aids that addresses overlooked concerns, such as hearing-aid comfort, convenience, and cosmetic appearance, that may influence hearing-aid adherence while maintaining brevity and sensitivity to clinical change. Design: Prospective, multicenter instrument validation. Setting: Four diverse sites in Washington State, including 2 private practices, 1 university setting, and 1 Veterans Affairs hospital. Patients: Seventy-eight patients with hearing aids. Interventions: We created 2 modules in the Effectiveness of Auditory Rehabilitation (EAR) scale. The first module (Inner EAR) covers intrinsic hearing issues such as hearing in quiet and hearing in noise and is administered both before and after treatment. The second module (Outer EAR) covers extrinsic (hearing-aid related) issues such as comfort, appearance, and convenience and is administered after hearing-aid fitting. Main Outcome Measures: Both scales were developed and validated in 3 stages. Stage 1 used a qualitative approach from multiple data sources to develop preliminary instruments. Stage 2 used approaches from classic test theory to reduce the number of items and psychometrically validate the instruments. Stage 3 examined the responsiveness or sensitivity to clinical change. Results: A 10-item Inner EAR module and a 10-item Outer EAR module were created and validated. Internal consistency of individual domains (Cronbach α=0.85 and 0.72, respectively) and test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficients=0.76 and 0.81, respectively) were excellent. Evidence of construct validity included concurrent validity with other hearing scales and global visual analog scales, discriminant validity with dizziness handicap, correlation with hearing-aid adherence, and confirmatory factor analyses. Both scales had strong evidence of responsiveness (sensitivity to change), with higher effect sizes and Guyatt responsiveness statistics than the 2 widely used hearing scales in this study. The scales took an average of 5 minutes to complete. Conclusions: The EAR scale is a valid and reliable measure of the effectiveness of amplification in the treatment of sensorineural hearing loss. It addresses the range of issues that are of importance to hearing-aid patients. The scales have excellent psychometric properties, are more responsive than several widely used hearing scales, and are minimally burdensome for patients to complete. The EAR may be a valuable outcome measure in future studies of both existing hearing aids and newer hearing-aid technologies, such as bone-anchored aids or middle ear implants.",
author = "Bevan Yueh and McDowell, {Jennifer A.} and Margaret Collins and Souza, {Pamela E.} and Loovis, {Carl F.} and Deyo, {Richard (Rick)}",
year = "2005",
month = "10",
doi = "10.1001/archotol.131.10.851",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "131",
pages = "851--856",
journal = "JAMA Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery",
issn = "2168-6181",
publisher = "American Medical Association",
number = "10",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Development and validation of the effectiveness of the auditory rehabilitation scale

AU - Yueh, Bevan

AU - McDowell, Jennifer A.

AU - Collins, Margaret

AU - Souza, Pamela E.

AU - Loovis, Carl F.

AU - Deyo, Richard (Rick)

PY - 2005/10

Y1 - 2005/10

N2 - Objective: To develop a new scale of hearing-related function and quality of life in patients with hearing aids that addresses overlooked concerns, such as hearing-aid comfort, convenience, and cosmetic appearance, that may influence hearing-aid adherence while maintaining brevity and sensitivity to clinical change. Design: Prospective, multicenter instrument validation. Setting: Four diverse sites in Washington State, including 2 private practices, 1 university setting, and 1 Veterans Affairs hospital. Patients: Seventy-eight patients with hearing aids. Interventions: We created 2 modules in the Effectiveness of Auditory Rehabilitation (EAR) scale. The first module (Inner EAR) covers intrinsic hearing issues such as hearing in quiet and hearing in noise and is administered both before and after treatment. The second module (Outer EAR) covers extrinsic (hearing-aid related) issues such as comfort, appearance, and convenience and is administered after hearing-aid fitting. Main Outcome Measures: Both scales were developed and validated in 3 stages. Stage 1 used a qualitative approach from multiple data sources to develop preliminary instruments. Stage 2 used approaches from classic test theory to reduce the number of items and psychometrically validate the instruments. Stage 3 examined the responsiveness or sensitivity to clinical change. Results: A 10-item Inner EAR module and a 10-item Outer EAR module were created and validated. Internal consistency of individual domains (Cronbach α=0.85 and 0.72, respectively) and test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficients=0.76 and 0.81, respectively) were excellent. Evidence of construct validity included concurrent validity with other hearing scales and global visual analog scales, discriminant validity with dizziness handicap, correlation with hearing-aid adherence, and confirmatory factor analyses. Both scales had strong evidence of responsiveness (sensitivity to change), with higher effect sizes and Guyatt responsiveness statistics than the 2 widely used hearing scales in this study. The scales took an average of 5 minutes to complete. Conclusions: The EAR scale is a valid and reliable measure of the effectiveness of amplification in the treatment of sensorineural hearing loss. It addresses the range of issues that are of importance to hearing-aid patients. The scales have excellent psychometric properties, are more responsive than several widely used hearing scales, and are minimally burdensome for patients to complete. The EAR may be a valuable outcome measure in future studies of both existing hearing aids and newer hearing-aid technologies, such as bone-anchored aids or middle ear implants.

AB - Objective: To develop a new scale of hearing-related function and quality of life in patients with hearing aids that addresses overlooked concerns, such as hearing-aid comfort, convenience, and cosmetic appearance, that may influence hearing-aid adherence while maintaining brevity and sensitivity to clinical change. Design: Prospective, multicenter instrument validation. Setting: Four diverse sites in Washington State, including 2 private practices, 1 university setting, and 1 Veterans Affairs hospital. Patients: Seventy-eight patients with hearing aids. Interventions: We created 2 modules in the Effectiveness of Auditory Rehabilitation (EAR) scale. The first module (Inner EAR) covers intrinsic hearing issues such as hearing in quiet and hearing in noise and is administered both before and after treatment. The second module (Outer EAR) covers extrinsic (hearing-aid related) issues such as comfort, appearance, and convenience and is administered after hearing-aid fitting. Main Outcome Measures: Both scales were developed and validated in 3 stages. Stage 1 used a qualitative approach from multiple data sources to develop preliminary instruments. Stage 2 used approaches from classic test theory to reduce the number of items and psychometrically validate the instruments. Stage 3 examined the responsiveness or sensitivity to clinical change. Results: A 10-item Inner EAR module and a 10-item Outer EAR module were created and validated. Internal consistency of individual domains (Cronbach α=0.85 and 0.72, respectively) and test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficients=0.76 and 0.81, respectively) were excellent. Evidence of construct validity included concurrent validity with other hearing scales and global visual analog scales, discriminant validity with dizziness handicap, correlation with hearing-aid adherence, and confirmatory factor analyses. Both scales had strong evidence of responsiveness (sensitivity to change), with higher effect sizes and Guyatt responsiveness statistics than the 2 widely used hearing scales in this study. The scales took an average of 5 minutes to complete. Conclusions: The EAR scale is a valid and reliable measure of the effectiveness of amplification in the treatment of sensorineural hearing loss. It addresses the range of issues that are of importance to hearing-aid patients. The scales have excellent psychometric properties, are more responsive than several widely used hearing scales, and are minimally burdensome for patients to complete. The EAR may be a valuable outcome measure in future studies of both existing hearing aids and newer hearing-aid technologies, such as bone-anchored aids or middle ear implants.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=26844487473&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=26844487473&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1001/archotol.131.10.851

DO - 10.1001/archotol.131.10.851

M3 - Article

C2 - 16230585

AN - SCOPUS:26844487473

VL - 131

SP - 851

EP - 856

JO - JAMA Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery

JF - JAMA Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery

SN - 2168-6181

IS - 10

ER -