Examination of individual differences in outcomes from a randomized controlled clinical trial comparing formal and informal individual auditory training programs

Sherri L. Smith, Gabrielle Saunders, Theresa H. Chisolm, Melissa Frederick, Beth A. Bailey

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine if patient characteristics or clinical variables could predict who benefits from individual auditory training. Method: A retrospective series of analyses were performed using a data set from a large, multisite, randomized controlled clinical trial that compared the treatment effects of at-home auditory training programs in bilateral hearing aid users. The treatment arms were (a) use of the 20-day computerized Listening and Communication Enhancement program, (b) use of the 10-day digital versatile disc Listening and Communication Enhancement program, (c) use of a placebo “books-on-tape” training, and (d) educational counseling (active control). Multiple linear regression models using data from 263 participants were conducted to determine if patient and clinical variables predicted short-term improvement on word-recognition-in-noise abilities, self-reported hearing handicap, and self-reported hearing problems. Results: Baseline performance significantly predicted performance on each variable, explaining 11%–17% of the variance in improvement. The treatment arm failed to emerge as a significant predictor with other clinical variables explaining less than 9% of the variance. Conclusion: These results suggest that hearing aid users who have poorer aided word-recognition-in-noise scores and greater residual activity limitations and participation restrictions will show the largest improvement in these areas.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)876-886
Number of pages11
JournalJournal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research
Volume59
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 1 2016

Fingerprint

Individuality
training program
educational counseling
Hearing Aids
Randomized Controlled Trials
Education
DVD
Hearing
examination
Noise
communication
Linear Models
Handicap
Communication
performance
Aptitude
regression
participation
Counseling
ability

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Language and Linguistics
  • Linguistics and Language
  • Speech and Hearing

Cite this

Examination of individual differences in outcomes from a randomized controlled clinical trial comparing formal and informal individual auditory training programs. / Smith, Sherri L.; Saunders, Gabrielle; Chisolm, Theresa H.; Frederick, Melissa; Bailey, Beth A.

In: Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, Vol. 59, No. 4, 01.08.2016, p. 876-886.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{cda9bed8249b4c759b8cb1020639f03c,
title = "Examination of individual differences in outcomes from a randomized controlled clinical trial comparing formal and informal individual auditory training programs",
abstract = "Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine if patient characteristics or clinical variables could predict who benefits from individual auditory training. Method: A retrospective series of analyses were performed using a data set from a large, multisite, randomized controlled clinical trial that compared the treatment effects of at-home auditory training programs in bilateral hearing aid users. The treatment arms were (a) use of the 20-day computerized Listening and Communication Enhancement program, (b) use of the 10-day digital versatile disc Listening and Communication Enhancement program, (c) use of a placebo “books-on-tape” training, and (d) educational counseling (active control). Multiple linear regression models using data from 263 participants were conducted to determine if patient and clinical variables predicted short-term improvement on word-recognition-in-noise abilities, self-reported hearing handicap, and self-reported hearing problems. Results: Baseline performance significantly predicted performance on each variable, explaining 11{\%}–17{\%} of the variance in improvement. The treatment arm failed to emerge as a significant predictor with other clinical variables explaining less than 9{\%} of the variance. Conclusion: These results suggest that hearing aid users who have poorer aided word-recognition-in-noise scores and greater residual activity limitations and participation restrictions will show the largest improvement in these areas.",
author = "Smith, {Sherri L.} and Gabrielle Saunders and Chisolm, {Theresa H.} and Melissa Frederick and Bailey, {Beth A.}",
year = "2016",
month = "8",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1044/2016_JSLHR-H-15-0162",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "59",
pages = "876--886",
journal = "Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research",
issn = "1092-4388",
publisher = "American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA)",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Examination of individual differences in outcomes from a randomized controlled clinical trial comparing formal and informal individual auditory training programs

AU - Smith, Sherri L.

AU - Saunders, Gabrielle

AU - Chisolm, Theresa H.

AU - Frederick, Melissa

AU - Bailey, Beth A.

PY - 2016/8/1

Y1 - 2016/8/1

N2 - Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine if patient characteristics or clinical variables could predict who benefits from individual auditory training. Method: A retrospective series of analyses were performed using a data set from a large, multisite, randomized controlled clinical trial that compared the treatment effects of at-home auditory training programs in bilateral hearing aid users. The treatment arms were (a) use of the 20-day computerized Listening and Communication Enhancement program, (b) use of the 10-day digital versatile disc Listening and Communication Enhancement program, (c) use of a placebo “books-on-tape” training, and (d) educational counseling (active control). Multiple linear regression models using data from 263 participants were conducted to determine if patient and clinical variables predicted short-term improvement on word-recognition-in-noise abilities, self-reported hearing handicap, and self-reported hearing problems. Results: Baseline performance significantly predicted performance on each variable, explaining 11%–17% of the variance in improvement. The treatment arm failed to emerge as a significant predictor with other clinical variables explaining less than 9% of the variance. Conclusion: These results suggest that hearing aid users who have poorer aided word-recognition-in-noise scores and greater residual activity limitations and participation restrictions will show the largest improvement in these areas.

AB - Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine if patient characteristics or clinical variables could predict who benefits from individual auditory training. Method: A retrospective series of analyses were performed using a data set from a large, multisite, randomized controlled clinical trial that compared the treatment effects of at-home auditory training programs in bilateral hearing aid users. The treatment arms were (a) use of the 20-day computerized Listening and Communication Enhancement program, (b) use of the 10-day digital versatile disc Listening and Communication Enhancement program, (c) use of a placebo “books-on-tape” training, and (d) educational counseling (active control). Multiple linear regression models using data from 263 participants were conducted to determine if patient and clinical variables predicted short-term improvement on word-recognition-in-noise abilities, self-reported hearing handicap, and self-reported hearing problems. Results: Baseline performance significantly predicted performance on each variable, explaining 11%–17% of the variance in improvement. The treatment arm failed to emerge as a significant predictor with other clinical variables explaining less than 9% of the variance. Conclusion: These results suggest that hearing aid users who have poorer aided word-recognition-in-noise scores and greater residual activity limitations and participation restrictions will show the largest improvement in these areas.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84984645009&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84984645009&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1044/2016_JSLHR-H-15-0162

DO - 10.1044/2016_JSLHR-H-15-0162

M3 - Article

VL - 59

SP - 876

EP - 886

JO - Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research

JF - Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research

SN - 1092-4388

IS - 4

ER -