Title The normative data and validity of the Chinese version ofinternational outcome inventory for hearing aids (IOI-HA) Author(s) Hui, Wing-yan; 許穎欣 Citation Issued Date 2009 URL http://hdl.handle.net/10722/173666 Rights Creative Commons: Attribution 3.0 Hong Kong License 1 The Normative data and Validity of the Chinese version of International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids (IOI-HA) HUI Wing Yan A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Bachelor of Science (Speech and Hearing Sciences), The University of Hong Kong, June 30, 2009 2 Abstract This study aimed at obtaining normative data and evaluating validity on the Chinese version of International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids (IOI-HA). The collected data would be useful to evaluate the effectiveness of hearing aid fitting in Hong Kong Cantonese population. IOI-HA was administered on 32 Cantonese-speaking hearing aid users. The Chinese version of IOI-HA showed high internal consistency. Factor analysis and inter-item correlations indicated the presence of two subscales, one of which could be regarded as benefit subscale and the other was residual problem subscale. Significant correlation were found between benefit and satisfaction scores on IOI-HA and satisfaction scores on the Profile of Hearing Aid Consumer Satisfaction (PHACS) for establishing convergent validity partially. Discriminant validity was found by having insignificant correlation of hearing aid use on IOI-HA and Chinese version of the Profile of Hearing Aid Performance (PHAP-C) as well as general satisfaction score on PHACS. The mean outcome scores collected did not differ substantially from those of other countries and they tended to be very positive in hearing aid fitting outcomes. Further investigation to include larger sample size with more diverse subject characteristics was recommended. 3 A gradual change towards consumer-driven healthcare system was noted in aural rehabilitation (Cox, 2003; Cox, Stephen, & Kramer, 2002; Gagné, 2000). Other than judgments on instrumental measures, the client’s point of view was increasingly regarded as valid and significant for documenting the real-life success of treatment (Cox, 2003). Measuring hearing aid outcomes has been growing important recently. The data was essential to justify treatment effectiveness to consumer groups and third-party payers, who were seeking evidence of efficient treatment outcomes (Cox, 2003). Besides, the data was important to provide proof to compete with different disciplines of healthcare rehabilitation services for funding allocation (Beck, 2000). In addition, self-report measures could identify the client’s self-perception treatment outcomes in-terms of benefit/satisfaction (Dillion, James, & Ginis, 1997; Salomon, Vesterager, & Jagd, 1988), which convinced prospective hearing aid users and prevented deferral on aid use (Franks & Beckmann, 1985). The results could be reference to evaluate and modify existing program (e.g. post-fitting aural rehabilitation) so as to meet the needs of hearing aid users (Gagné, 2000). Cox (2003) suggested that at least seven different domains should be included in self-report measure in order to evaluate hearing aid fitting outcomes completely. These included measurement of time of hearing aid use every day; the subjective benefit resulted from using hearing aids, the hearing aid wearer’s satisfaction with the device, the residual activity limitation which referred to difficulties hearing aid wearers were still having in hearing related tasks (e.g. speech understanding), the residual participation restrictions that related to limited involvement of daily life due to unresolved problems or barriers (e.g. feeling embarrassed of using hearing aids), the impacts on others after hearing aid fitting and also changes in quality of life after aid use. These seven domains were measured in the International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids (IOI-HA) developed by Cox et al. (2000). The International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids (IOI-HA) was a self–report 4 assessment tool to evaluate the effectiveness of rehabilitative treatments using hearing aids (Cox et al., 2000). The inventory with seven questions was inclusive and brief enough to attract practitioners as well as researchers (Cox, Alexander, & Beyer, 2003). It supplemented existing self-report outcome measures to evaluate hearing aid fitting. The inventory aimed at providing data which allow comparison across diverse hearing healthcare settings or different social and cultural settings (Cox et al., 2000). In 2002, Cox, Stephens and Kramer proposed that the inventory was translated into 21 languages which could be applied on users speaking different languages in various countries. Now, 25 translations are available (ICRA, n.d.). The normative data of Chinese version of IOI-HA Demorest and DeHaven (1993) suggested content-referenced measures would be far more valid when a norm was given. The mean of a distribution of scores was norm and represented typical performance of the target population. Any variation around the mean was described as standard deviation or percentile rankings. The client’s score was compared with the norm to see if it was typical or atypical from target population (Demorest & Walden, 1984). The normative data of English version IOI-HA in terms of means and standard deviations was established (Cox, Alexander, & Beyer, 2003). However, only preliminary norm had been established for the Chinese version (Ip, 2007) and it should be validated. Although English norms were reported, the usability of the data was restricted to apply in Cantonese population. Hyde (2000) claimed that subjective response on items of a given survey might change a lot whenever there was any big variation in content, format or even context of the items. The subject’s responses on the surveys depended greatly on context where they were administered (Hyde, 2000); this meant the subject’s response on Chinese version of IOI-HA maybe different from that of English version due to different characteristics and cultural background of subject group. Recent research studies discovered that different acceptance and self-perception of hearing impairment as less handicapping were 5 found between elderly Chinese-speaking individuals and their western counterparts (Doyle & Wong, 1996; Jupita & Palagonia, 2001). The Chinese-speaking individuals have different attitudes towards reduced hearing sensitivity. They were more accepting of hearing loss and less likely to report impairment or handicap (Doyle, Schaefer, Dacakis, & Wong, 2002; Jupita & Palagonia, 2001). This was supported by Doyle and Wong (1996) who suggested that the Chinese elder people would regard reduced hearing sensitivity as part of elder character, rather than a problem. Moreover, during verbal interchange, the elder people with reduced hearing sensitivity usually gained respect from partners, who would alter communication behaviors to ensure understanding. This habit reduced the impact of hearing impairment on communication without amplification. In addition to limited disposable income to afford buying or repairing hearing aid (Franks & Beckmann, 1985) and lack of advice to aid use constitute significant deferral to hearing aid fitting (Doyle & Wong, 1996). Apart from these, the features of Cantonese dialect were advantages to people with hearing impairments (Doyle et al., 2002). Cantonese is a tonal language which uses lexical tone to determine meaning. The tonal characters carried important information in low-frequency pitch change below 500Hz while few consonant distinctions at high-frequency pitch range (Fok as cited in Doyle et al., 2002). The characteristic is favorable to listeners who have relatively good low-frequency hearing at 500Hz or below on standard audiogram, that is, people with age-related hearing loss or presbycusis. As a consequence of the attitude towards hearing loss, the linguistic and cultural factors, the Chinese elderly are less likely to report hearing impairment (Doyle & Wong, 1996). These individuals might take longer time to seek help from audiologists and thus hearing threshold became poorer due to progressive deterioration of hearing structures (Gratton & Vázquez, 2003). People with severe hearing loss would tend to wear larger hearing aids like 6 behind-the-ear (BTE) style (Wong, Hickson, & McPherson, 2003). By doing normative comparison, Kendall and Sheldrick (2000) stressed that representative community sample should be obtained. Demorest and Walden (1984) also mentioned that it was better to develop local norms with representative sample as baseline to describe the typical performance pattern of hearing aids wearers. The clinician can interpret a client’s score based on the local normative data, and then plan or refine treatment program to match the special needs of client in that local population. Due to effects brought from different attitude on hearing loss, cultural and linguistic factors, it is expected that most elder Chinese hearing aid users would use BTE style of hearing aid(s), which is different from the English norm reference group who wear in-the-ear (ITE) hearing aids (Cox et al., 2003). Therefore, the present study will establish norms with representative reference group for Chinese version of IOI-HA. Psychometric properties of Chinese version of IOI-HA To establish the comparability of different translations, psychometric properties of each translation should be carried out (Cox & Alexander, 2002; Demorest & DeHaven, 1993). The psychometric characteristics are in terms of reliability and validity. Reliability refered to consistent reproduction of data measured in different occasions while validity found out extent that a test was consistently measuring what it intended to measure (Beck, 2000). Up until now, equivalence psychometric characteristics has been reported by studies in USA (Cox & Alexander, 2002), Netherlands (Kramer, Goverts, Dreschler, Boymans, & Festen, 2002), Wales (Stephens, 2002) Germans (Heuermann, Kinkel, & Tchorz, 2005) and Arabic countries (Mohamed, 2005). Validation of an outcome measure was an on-going process across different languages and cultural versions to allow data comparison (Cox et al., 2002). The psychometric properties of Chinese version had not yet been validated due to limited sample size (Ip, 2007). It will be examined in terms of internal consistency reliability and 7 construct validity. The internal consistency reliability determines if all items within a measure consistently measure the same thing. The item-total correlation and Cronbach’s alpha would be the most popular measure of finding this reliability (Hyde, 2000). The correlation between each item in the IOI-HA and the sum of scale scores will be found. A particular item with low correlation implied measuring something different from the rest of items and it should be deleted to maintain the survey’s reliability (Dillion et al., 1997). The construct validity of the IOI-HA relies on two other validities, the convergent and discriminant validity. They former examined how the inventory correlated with one or more additional measures linking by the same underlying construct while the latter examined if the inventory does not correlate with measure expected to be unrelated (Hyde, 2000; Zechmeister, Zechmeister, & Shaughnessy, 2001). Correlation analysis will be used to explore relationships between particular item score on IOI-HA and other surveys that were validated to measure similar underlying domain (Hyde, 2000). The additional measures used to show either convergent or discriminant validity will be two reliable and validated self-report outcome instruments called the Profile of Hearing Aid Consumer Satisfaction (PHACS) (Wong, Hickson, & McPhersion, 2003) and The Chinese version of the Profile of Hearing Aid Performance (PHAP-C; Wong, manuscript in preparation). To establish the convergent validity, it is hypothesized that (1) IOI-HA item on satisfaction is expected to correlate positively with general satisfaction on hearing aid(s) as well as satisfaction to hear in specific situations as measured on PHACS. Several studies revealed that satisfaction correlated with benefit (Dillon et al., 1997; Meister, Lausberg, Kiessling, Wedal, & Waiger, 2003) which induced hypothesis (2) benefit item on IOI-HA is expected to correlate with general satisfaction on hearing aid(s) as well as satisfaction in 8 hearing in specific listening situations as measured on PHACS. Furthermore, Cox and Alexander (1995) found that even successful hearing aid users usually had certain degree of hearing problem in daily life listening situations when compared with normal hearers. The presence of residual hearing problem in everyday listening circumstances will be reflected by score of residual activity limitation. The measure of aided performance in various listening situations will also indicate the effect of residual hearing problems on these situations. As a consequence, hypothesis (3) residual activity limitation on IOI-HA is expected to correlate with aided performance measured on PHAP-C. Dillon et al. (1997) reported that hearing aid use did not correlate with general satisfaction of hearing aids. The users reported little usage regardless of high satisfaction (Meister et al., 2003) while some of them satisfied from occasional hearing-aid use such as understanding television/radio (Salomon et al., 1988). Some users even showed satisfaction from never using the device or just using a few hours a day (Dillon et al. as cited in Wong, 2003). Moreover, the hearing aid use did not correlate to aided performance in both easy and difficult listening conditions (Meister et al., 2003); hearing aids were only used when there was hearing handicap. As a consequence, hypothesis (4) hearing aid use on IOI-HA is expected not to correlate with aided performance on PHAP-C and general satisfaction with hearing aid on PHACS. The result will be used to establish discriminant validity. If good psychometric properties are established, then Chinese version of IOI-HA will be regarded as valid tool to compare hearing aid fitting outcomes in Chinese population to other population. In sum, the norm of Chinese version of IOI-HA which includes community sample and describes the typical performance pattern of hearing aid wearers will be established for interpreting a client’s score, and then facilitate treatment planning to meet the special needs of clients in Hong Kong Cantonese population. Besides, to establish validity of the Chinese IOI-HA, psychometric properties should be evaluated. Therefore, the present study will focus 9 on: (1) establishment of normative data of Chinese version of IOI-HA, by collecting new data, in addition to those obtained already (Ip, 2007) and (2) establishment of psychometric properties in terms of internal consistency reliability and construct validity for the inventory. Method Participants Data of thirty-two participants (17 female, 15 male) were analyzed. Two PHACS and PHAP-C questionnaires were uncompleted and their responses were excluded. The participants’ age ranged from 58 to 87 years old with a mean age of 76.2 years old (SD 6.11). The mean pure-tone threshold averaged at 500, 1000 and 2000 Hz was 61.5 dB HL (SD = 15.2) in the better ear and 73.8 dB HL (SD = 18.5) in the worse ear. Twenty-two of them were diagnosed to have sensorineural hearing loss; nine of them had mixed hearing loss and one of them had conductive hearing loss. Twelve of them were binaurally fitted and twenty of them were monaurally fitted. The majority were fitted with digital hearing aid(s). They used various styles of hearing aids: 0.03% body-worn, 59.4% behind-the-ear, 15.6% in-the-ear, 9.4% in-the-canal and 9.4% completely-in-the-ear. Fifteen of them were first-time user of hearing aid(s) while sixteen of them were not. Their duration of hearing loss ranged from 1 year to 68 years with a mean of 12 years and 4 months (SD = 16.4). The duration of wearing hearing aid(s) ranged from 1 month to 56 years with a mean of 6 years and 3 months (SD = 10.2). About 50% of participants had primary level of education, 28.1% had secondary level and 21.9% had tertiary level of education. Within the 32 participants, seven of them have monthly income range from HKD5000 to HKD20000 while the rest are retiring and have no income. Questionnaire, IOI-HA The IOI-HA is a short self-report assessment comprises seven items, each taps on different outcome domain. The domains are in order: hearing aid use (Use), benefit (Ben), 10 residual activity limitation (RAL), satisfaction (Sat), residual participation restriction (RPR), impacts on significant others (Ioth) and quality of life (QoL). The participants responded to the questionnaire by ticking one of the response choices on a five-point scale, in which the worst outcome on the left to the best outcome on the right. It was self-explanatory and no formal instruction was required (Cox & Alexander, 2002). Since the original Chinese version was translated based on Mandarin instead of colloquial Cantonese, so some of the wordings on the response choices (e.g. 「糟」/tsou1/ in Mandarin instead of 「差」/tshsa1/ in Cantonese to translate the word “worse”) in original Mandarin version would hard to be understood by Cantonese-speaking people, especially the elderly population with low literacy. Therefore, the wordings in the original version were modified by a native Cantonese speaker with a Master degree in Chinese language. The nuance of original English version was captured when they were compared. The modified version was also reviewed by 20 native Cantonese speakers, to ensure the wordings in response choices were approximately semantically equidistant from each other (Levine as cited in Cox et al., 2003). After that, the modified Cantonese version of IOI-HA (See appendix 1) was accepted and used in the previous (Ip, 2007) and present studies. PHAP-C The Chinese version of the Profile of Hearing Aid Performance (PHAP-C; Wong, manuscript in preparation) was the first valid and reliable self-assessment inventory to identify hearing aid performance among the Cantonese population in Hong Kong. The PHAP-C comprises 42 items to evaluate hearing aid performance in four listening environment which are ‘background noise’ (14 items), ‘reduced cues’ (12 items), ‘aversiveness to sounds’ (9 items) and ‘ease of communication’ (6 items). The items in each subscale were selected based on relevancy and applicability on lifestyle of many elderly Cantonese. Those circumstances that were less likely to occur were 11 deleted, so that the subjects will be able to complete the questionnaire in shorter time period (Dillion et al., 1997). The mean of each subscale before and after item reduction were compared by using data collected from 139 subjects by Wong (Wong, manuscript in preparation) and no statistical significant differences (p> .01) was noted using paired samples T-test (Table 1). This ensured the selected items in each subscale would yield similar results as the original version. Table 1. Paired samples T-test of PHAP-C in original and reduced-item versions (N=135) Subscale Mean (SD) Significance (p< .01) Original Reduced EC 41.79 (23.57) 43.05 (23.73) 0.028 AV 49.64 (21.87) 48.56 (21.65) 0.071 RC 39.43 (18.70) 40.15 (18.88) 0.093 BN 60.33 (20.76) 58.83 (20.90) 0.011 After item reduction, the shortened questionnaire comprised 24 items (See appendix 2). The “background noise” (BN) subscale consisted seven items to represent conversation in environment with background noise, e.g. “I have difficulty understanding others on a bus”. The “reduced cues” (RC) subscale consisted seven items to evaluate hearing ability when the situations had low speech intensity or when listener could not see the speaker. An example item of this subscale was “I have difficulty understanding my family when they talk to me in a normal voice”. Six items were selected in “aversiveness” (AV) subscale to evaluate hearing aids performance when user regarded sounds as being aversive or unpleasant. One of the examples of the subscale was “Children's shouts are too shrill”. The “ease of communication” 12 (EC) subscale finally consisted of four items to evaluate hearing aid performance in low noise environment and visual cues present, e.g. “When I am having a quiet conversation with a companion, I find it hard to understand”. The participants were instructed to respond to the items according to experiences with their hearing aid(s) and rated the frequency of occurrence of situations: always (99% of the time), almost always (87%), generally (75%), half-the-time (50%), occasionally (25%), seldom (12%) and never (1%). PHACS The Profile of Hearing Aid Consumer Satisfaction (PHACS) was a new measure of hearing aids outcome with adequate test-retest reliability yielded in Cantonese population (Wong, Hickson and McPhersion, 2003). The questionnaire comprises 18 items among four subscales, and including a general satisfaction rating with hearing aid and audiological services. The four subscales were ‘hearing abilities’ (6 items), ‘problem’ (6 items), ‘cost’ (2 items) and ‘service’ (4 items). Since satisfaction in specific situation as well as general satisfaction rating of hearing aids were hypothesized to correlated with IOI-HA items, so only subscale “hearing ability” and general satisfaction rating on PHACS were used in the present study (See appendix 3). The “hearing ability” subscale consisted six items to evaluate the users’ hearing ability in different situations, i.e. converse with family, converse in quiet, converse in noise, converse on the phone, hear television/radio program and hear signals like doll bell. The items were rated concerning aspects of performance, disconfirmation and satisfaction. A scale of 0 (not at all) to 100 (extremely) was used to measure hearing aid performance and satisfaction, with 0 representing the worst performance/no satisfaction and 100 representing the best/total satisfaction. While disconfirmation was rated on a 5-point scale with response categories: much worse than expected(1), worse than expected (2), same as expected (3), better than expected (4), and much better than expected (5). 13 Procedures The participants were recruited using criteria of (1) age 18 or above, (2) wearing hearing aid(s) for four weeks or above, (3) Cantonese speaker and (4) mentally alert and no significant problem in self-reporting. Those who met these selection criteria and agreed to participate into the study were recruited from four private hearing clinics, one elderly centre, the Hong Kong Society for the Deaf and hearing centre from Division of Speech and Hearing Sciences. The questionnaires and consent form were either mailed to the clients or distributed through investigator or audiologists during their hearing aid visits. The participants were given options of filling in the questionnaires at once or returning them to investigator in postage paid envelope. They were asked to fill out the questionnaires in a paper-and-pencil format. The questionnaires were self-administered, with supervision by the investigator or audiologists when they fill in the questionnaires at once. For participants who were unable to read the questionnaires but willing to participate, the questions and response choices were verbally presented in exactly the same wording as printed on questionnaires by investigator. Apart from the questionnaires, demographic information (see Appendix 4) including age, sex, level of education, economic status, duration of hearing loss and duration of wearing hearing aid(s), monaural or binaural fitting and experience of hearing aid use were collected along the questionnaires. Information about type and degree of hearing loss, type and style of hearing aids were collected by investigator from reading participants’ case files in corresponding hearing centers. They also filled in a consent form (see Appendix 5) to agree to give their personal information and data for the study, and they were informed that their responses were anonymous. 14 Results Statistical tests were performed using the SPSS 16.0 statistical software (SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL). The five response choices of the IOI-HA items were coded from 1 to 5 with higher score to represent better outcomes (Cox & Alexander, 2002). The response distribution, mean score and standard deviation for each item of IOI-HA were examined. The mean and standard deviation of each item were shown in Table 2. The mean score had a range 3.63 to 4.25, which all scored above the median of the scoring range, implying good outcomes towards hearing aid fitting. Table 2. The mean and standard deviation of the Cantonese IOI-HA items (n = 32) IOI-HA item Mean Standard Deviation Use 3.88 0.94 Benefit 4.25 0.76 Residual Activity Limitation 3.94 0.91 Satisfaction 4.09 0.78 Residual Participation Restriction 3.63 0.87 Impact on Others 3.88 0.94 Quality of Life 3.72 0.85 The response distribution in Figure 1 illustrated the proportion of participants selecting each response. All items had normal distribution on the frequency response except item 1 (Use), which had the most responses at score 3 while the second high frequency response at score 5. Other items had the maximum frequency response at score 4 and the distribution were negatively skewed. 15 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Use Ben RAL Sat RPR Ioth QoL P er ce nt ag e of r es po ns es IOI-HA items 1 2 3 4 5 Figure 1. Frequency distributions of Chinese version of IOI-HA items Use= daily use; Ben= Benefit; RAL= Residual Activity Limitation; Sat= Satisfaction; RPR= Residual Participation Restrictions; Ioth= Impact on others; QoL= Quality of Life Apart from showing the descriptive statistics to establish normative data of Chinese version of IOI-HA, inter-item correlation was computed to show the extent of correlation between each item. Since several items showed skewness to the right on response distribution which violated normal distribution assumption of using parametric test (Field, 2000), so non-parametric Spearman’s rho correlation coefficient analysis was administered to investigate the inter-item correlation (Table 3). A complex pattern of inter-item relations was found in table 3. All IOI-HA items correlated significantly with at least two other items. A principal component factor analysis was applied on the data to examine factor structure. Two factors had been extracted and shown clearly after Varimax rotation and Kaiser Normalization, only loadings greater than 0.4 were shown (Table 4). The Chinese IOI-HA items were separated into two factors, accounting for 68% of total response variance. Factor 1 16 included items 1, 2, 4 and 7 while factor 2 included items 3, 5 and 6. The factor loading ranged from 0.63 to 0.89 which indicated the items had moderate to strong correlation with their corresponding factors (Field, 2000). The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient values were 0.76 and 0.85 respectively. The coefficients estimated the extent which items in each factor were measuring the same underlying domain. The values were greater than 0.7 which supported the presence of reliability and usefulness of the subscales (Pallant, 2005). Table 3. Non-parametric Spearman’s rho correlation coefficients among IOI-HA items. Variable Ben RAL Sat RPR Ioth QoL Use 0.59** 0.49** 0.42* 0.37* Benefit 0.44* 0.65** 0.46** 0.47** RAL 0.53** 0.59** 0.48** Sat 0.53** RPR 0.65** 0.43* Note. **p< .01. *p< .05., Insignificant correlation had been deleted Another common measure of internal consistency reliability of a scale was corrected item-total correlation coefficient. The coefficient showed the relationship between the item score and the sum of scale scores. The desirable value should be greater than 0.4 and any item showing value less than 0.30 should be eliminated as it was measuring something different from the rest of items (Pallant, 2005). The values were fairly high, ranging from 0.46 to 0.67, indicating the items were quite homogenous. The values of Cronbach’s alpha if item deleted were shown on Table 4. The summed-items alpha for the scale was 0.82. If this value increases a lot after an item is removed, indicating that particular item will not consistent with other items and little contribution has been provided by it to the combined items’ score. The 17 Cronbach’s alpha after item deleted showed that no significant increase in the alpha value and all were not larger than the summed-item value. Table 4. Factor loading of the Cantonese IOI-HA items on each extracted factor after prinicipal component analysis with Varimax rotation and Kaiser Normalization. Item-total statistics and Cronbach’s alpha were also reported. (n= 32) Item no. Factor loading Corrected item-total correlation Cronbach’s Alpha if item deleted. Factor 1 Cronbach’s alpha coefficient = 0.76 1 0.72 0.46 0.82 2 0.84 0.57 0.80 4 0.78 0.66 0.79 7 0.63 0.46 0.82 Factor 2 Cronbach’s alpha coefficient = 0.85 3 0.77 0.67 0.79 5 0.88 0.66 0.79 6 0.89 0.55 0.81 Apart from finding the reliability of an inventory, validity was another important measure in the process of establishing psychometric properties (Hyde, 2000). To obtain insight into the convergent validity of the inventory, items 2 (Ben) and 4 (Sat) of Chinese version of IOI-HA were hypothesized to correlate with satisfaction scores on PHACS (Table 5), which evaluated the user’s satisfaction on hearing aids in six specific listening conditions. 18 Also, item 3 (RAL) of Chinese version of IOI-HA was hypothesized to correlate with aided performance of hearing aids in four listening conditions measure by PHAP-C. To establish the discriminant validity, item 1 (use) was hypothesized not to correlate with score of aided performance in four kinds of listening situations on PHAP-C and general satisfaction score on PHACS. Table 5. The Spearman’s rho correlation coefficient between benefit and satisfaction on Cantonese version IOI-HA and satisfaction with hearing aids in specific situations as well as general satisfaction of hearing aids on PHACS (n = 32) GS CF CQ CN TV CP SI Benefit 0.49** 0.40* 0.36* 0.42* 0.39* Satisfact 0.42* 0.44* 0.43* 0.42* GS= General satisfaction on hearing aids; CF= communication with friends; CQ= communication in quiet environment; CN= communication in noisy environment; TV= watching television; CP= communication on phone; SI= listening to signal, e.g. doll bell or telephone ring, Note. **p< .01. *p< .05., Insignificant correlation have been deleted The results revealed that there were statistically significant correlation between benefit and satisfaction on IOI-HA and satisfaction scores in some of the listening conditions on PHACS (p< .05). Neither of them correlated significantly with all conditions. Also, communication on phone (CP) and communication in noise (CN) had insignificant correlation with both satisfaction and benefit scores. Satisfaction in listening signal did not correlate with satisfaction score but benefit score on IOI-HA. The results were consistent to findings that 19 hearing aid satisfaction was noted in some listening situations but no all (Cox & Alexander, 1995). Conversation and listening in difficult situations (i.e. noise background) would bring lower satisfaction as well as benefit towards hearing aid fitting (Wong et al., 2004). Besides, residual activity limitation on IOI-HA had insignificant correlation (p> .05) with aided performance of three kinds of listening situation on PHAP-C except listening under reduced cues situation (r = 0.394, p< .05). Furthermore, hearing aid use on IOI-HA had insignificant correlation (p> .05) with general satisfaction on PHACS and aided performance on PHAP-C. The results were concurrent with Meister et al (2003) who found that aided performance and general satisfaction of hearing aids did not have significant correlation with usage. The mean scores in the present study were compared with those obtained in USA (Cox & Alexander, 2002), Germans (Heuermann et al., 2005), Netherlands (Kramer et al., 2002), Wales (Stephens, 2002) and that obtained in preliminary study (Ip, 2007) to determine if mean values obtained in the present study would demonstrate difference between other language versions (Figure 2). A statistical comparison of IOI-HA data in the present study and that of other languages was not accurate due to the small sample size. However, by visual inspection of the data among different language versions, there was no substantially difference between mean scores in the present study and those obtained in other countries. The ratings of the IOI-HA items varied across different countries, but tended to be very positive towards hearing aid fitting. Nevertheless, the mean scores of present study were compared with that of preliminary study (Ip, 2007). Independent sample T-test was performed and found that item 1 (use) was significantly lower in the present study than that of preliminary study while item 2 (benefit) was significantly higher than that in Ip (2007). 20 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 Use Ben RAL Sat RPR Ioth QoL M ea n sc or es IOI-HA items HK (present)(N=32) HK (preliminary)(N=35) USA (mild)(N=71) USA (moderate)(N=73) German (Mailing)(N=488) German (Field study)(N=80) Netherlands (N=505) Wales (N=161) * * * * Figure 2. Mean scores of the IOI-HA items across different language versions. IOI-HA mean values that were significantly different from mean scores in the present study were indicated by an asterisk ** p< .01 Use= daily use; Ben= Benefit; RAL= Residual Activity Limitation; Sat= Satisfaction; RPR= Residual Participation Restrictions; Ioth= Impact on others; QoL= Quality of Life Discussion The research study aimed at establishing normative data of Chinese version IOI-HA in Hong Kong, in addition to those obtained already (Ip, 2007). According to the mean scores of the outcomes and frequency distribution shown on Table 1 and Figure 1 respectively, the participants were very positive towards hearing aid fitting. Though most participants used their hearing aid(s) for 1 to 4 hours a day, the high benefit score (mean = 4.25, SD= 0.76), indicating the hearing aid(s) helped quite a lot in situation where participants wanted to hear well. Slight difficulty in the same situation was shown by residual activity limitation (mean = 3.94, SD = 0.91). Moreover, hearing aid satisfaction was very high (mean = 4.09, SD = 0.78), 21 indicating the participants were pleased with the device(s). In terms of participation restrictions (mean = 3.63, SD = 0.87), the score indicated participants with their hearing aid(s), presence of hearing difficulties slightly affect their participation of daily activities. Furthermore, majority of participants thought that their hearing difficulties bothered others slightly (mean = 3.88, SD= 0.94). As for the quality of life (mean = 3.72, SD= 0.85), majority of participants indicated their hearing aid(s) offered much enjoyment and improvement on their life. The generally high mean scores indicated participants in the present study had very positive attitude towards the hearing aid fitting. As shown in Figure 2, the present results had no substantially difference with that in other countries. Others’ results were also tended to be very positive towards hearing aid fitting outcomes as measured by IOI-HA. However, the mean scores on use and benefit had significant difference (p< .01) between the present study and that in preliminary study (Ip, 2007). This hindered combination of normative data to derive higher statistical power. The participants in previous study used their hearing aid(s) for longer hour (over 8 hours a day) while participants in the present study used their hearing aid(s) mostly for 1 to 4 hours a day. This may due to the generally younger age profiles of the participants in previous study (Mean age: 55.3; SD: 20.6) while older participants were recruited in the present study (Mean age: 76.2; SD: 6.11). The younger participants required critical hearing for performing well in job or interacting with colleagues. But for the elder participants in the present study, 25 of them are retiring from the work force and tended to participate less in social activities, may led to selective use or occasional use of their hearing aid(s) (Surr, Schuchman & Montgomery, 1978). This contributed to decrease in daily hearing aid use. Besides, when they used the hearing aid(s) selectively, they might use the device(s) in situations where they want better hearing and the device(s) could really serve the purpose when compared to unaided performance with great hearing obstacle. That’s the reason why their benefit score was higher. 22 Although the participants showed relatively good attitude towards their hearing aid(s), the representativeness of the normative data for Hong Kong hearing aid wearers was hindered by limited sample size. Self-selection process may occur. The participants in this study were recruited voluntarily either during their visit to hearing clinics or through phone call made by the investigator. Those who were less pleased with their hearing aid(s) were free to decline to join the study as they probably were less enthusiastic about obtaining regular device checking or refused to fill in the questionnaires. The gathered results were possibly lacking proportion of respondents who were not favoring their hearing aid fitting outcomes. Despite this was inevitable, Shaughnessy et al. (2003) suggested that having a sample size to at least 150 subjects would obtain desirable degree of statistical power (i.e. ability to detect a difference) and diminish self-selection effect, however, the present sample size is restricted to overcome the effect and give generalization of results. High internal consistency reliability of the IOI-HA items was found in each subscale. This was reflected by high corrected item-total correlations with all values were greater than cut-off point 0.30. All items were measuring something similar as each other (Pallant, 2005). The high Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of each factor, and no significant increase on alpha value of each item after deleted further supported the inventory had reasonably strong internal consistency reliability (Cox & Alexander, 2002). The factor structures were comparable to those identified by Cox and Alexander (2002) and Kramer et al. (2002) that factor loadings revealed a clear separation of IOI-HA items into two. Factor 1 with items on use, benefit, satisfaction and quality of life was interpreted as “benefit/satisfaction” (Stephens, 2002) or “users and their hearing aids” (Cox & Alexander, 2002), while factor 2 with items residual activity limitation, residual participation restriction and impact on others was interpreted as “residual participation limitation” (Stephens) or “users and their interaction with others” (Cox & Alexander). 23 Apart from internal consistency reliability, psychometric properties of the Chinese version of IOI-HA were validated by finding convergent and discriminant validities. Evidences for convergent validity were shown on table 4. Both benefit and satisfaction on Chinese version of IOI-HA had mild to moderate, significant correlation (p< .05) with general satisfaction score of hearing aid and also satisfaction scores of the device in some listening situations (e.g. communication in quiet). The results consistent with finding that general satisfaction of hearing aids had significant correlation with aided related outcomes including benefit and satisfaction (Meister, Lausberg, Kiessling, Wedel, & Walger, 2005). Takahashi et al. (2007) and Meister et al. (2005) claimed that hearing aid wearers had high satisfaction and benefit with hearing aid in quiet and easy listening situations. The mean scores of satisfaction for hearing when communication in quiet environment (mean = 84.0, SD = 11.1), communication with friend (mean = 78.5, SD=17.0) and watching TV (80.5, SD=11.4) measured on PHACS indicating high satisfaction of the device(s) in these listening conditions and therefore correlated moderately with high satisfaction and benefit scores on Chinese version of IOI-HA. As for listening to signal (e.g. telephone ring), participants may find it was an important listening situation during daily lives. Meister et al. (2003) found that importance of hearing aid within specific situation contributed to benefit rating and that’s why mild to moderate correlation was established between benefit score of IOI-HA and satisfaction rating of SI on PHACS. Takahashi et al. (2007) suggested that the satisfaction magnitude decreased in some aspects of hearing aid use (i.e. communication in noise, using telephone). However, both benefit and satisfaction scores failed to establish significant correlation with these hard-to-listen or unsatisfied listening situations and this maybe due to sampling errors. As for residual activity limitation on IOI-HA, the present result also failed to establish correlation with aided performance measured on PHAP-C except reduced cues situations. This was in 24 contrast to what Cox and Alexander (1995) suggested, even successful hearing aid users would have residual disability that was reflected on aided performance in various listening situations. Despite of this, satisfaction and benefit scores on Chinese version of IOI-HA had significant correlation with most satisfaction scores of hearing aid on PHACS, which was showing Chinese version of IOI-HA had established convergent validity partially. Evidence for discriminant validity was provided by examining if the inventory did not correlate with measure expected to be unrelated. The result showed that hearing aid use on IOI-HA had negligible relation with general satisfaction of hearing aid measured on PHACS and aided performance measured on PHAP-C. This was consistent with studies (Dillon et al. as cited in Wong, 2003; Meister et al., 2003; Meister et al., 2005; Salomon et al., 1988) which stated that hearing aid use did not yielded significant finding with general satisfaction and aid performance. The may because subjects use the hearing aid(s) when ease of listening (Takahashi et al., 2007) was required in any listening situation, which quiet situation resulted in high satisfaction and difficult situation resulted in low satisfaction towards hearing aid fitting. No matter they were satisfied on the device(s) or not, they would wear the hearing aid when there was hearing handicap. Besides, the aid performance would not correlate with daily hearing aid use. As long as the users had hearing problem in everyday listening situations, they would habitually rely on the device even if aided performance was not beneficial (Meister et al., 2003). As Demorest and Dehaven (1993) mentioned that construct validity should be established on inventory items to provide evidence in showing the inventory was measuring what it intended to measure. Positive correlation of the items with existing validated measures and negligible correlations of items with measures expected to be unrelated support inference of the inventory results. At present, the results provide insufficient evidence and therefore construct validity of the Chinese version of IOI-HA was partially established. 25 The study had some limitations. To begin with, the study tried to establish clinical normative data and psychometric properties for Chinese version of IOI-HA. The results indicated the inventory had similar factor structures as previous studies and it had good reliability and fair validity. However, the limitation of sample size and sample characteristics in the present study provided less precise estimates of population mean on Hong Kong hearing aid users (Demorest & Dehaven, 1993). Moreover, Field (2000) claimed that a sample of above 150 would probably provide a stable and reliable factor structure on the variables. The statistical power to detect differences by the factor analysis in the present study was limited by small sample size. Combining samples from previous study (Ip, 2007) was not applicable as significant difference on two-item means (i.e. use and benefit) on Chinese version of IOI-HA. Moreover, the cost for paying, repairing or maintaining the expensive devices could potentially influence outcomes (e.g. satisfaction) towards hearing aid fitting (Franks & Beckmann, 1985; Wong, 2003). As the majority participants being recruited in this study are retiring, only seven of them have monthly income range from HKD5000 to HKD20000 while the rest have no income, so the results might not actually reveal the outcomes towards hearing aid fitting among people who had higher socioeconomic level. It was suggested that further study should recruit larger sample size in order to obtain a more comprehensive and stronger statistical power of the factor structures. The sample participants should also have wider range of socioeconomic level to eliminate the effect of income level on hearing aid fitting outcomes. Conclusion The study had developed norms for the Chinese version of IOI-HA applicable to Hong Kong hearing aid users. The factor structure with two underlying domains (i.e. factor 1: interaction between hearing aid and users; factor 2: users and the environment) and psychometric properties were established. They were similar to those identified in other 26 translated versions. However, small sample size diminished generalization of the result to general population. Combination of results from preliminary study was not applicable as there was significance difference (p< .01) on mean scores of use and benefit. The present normative data did not differ substantially with results in other language versions. The ratings varied across different countries and they tended to be very positive towards hearing aid fitting. Adequate reliability of the Chinese IOI-HA was shown by high corrected item-total correlation and appropriate Cronbach’s alpha. Construct validity were established partially by having positive correlation between mean scores of benefit and satisfaction with satisfaction scores on PHACS and negligible correlation of usage with aided performance score on PHAP-C. Further study was recommended to establish normative data with larger sample size so as to improve the representativeness and increase statistical power of the factor structure. Besides, participants with higher socioeconomic state should be recruited to eliminate effect of income level on hearing aid fitting outcomes. Despite of these, the study had provided us insight about evaluation of the hearing aid fitting outcomes by using IOI-HA. Acknowledgements I wish to express my gratitude to Dr. Lena Wong for her supervision and support. I would like to thank the staffs of all hearing centers, the Hong Kong Society of Deaf and the elderly center. I would like to thank all elderly people who were willing to participate into the study. 27 Reference: Beck, L. B. (2000). The role of outcome data in health-care resource allocation. Ear & Hearing, 21 (4), 89S-99S. Cox, R. M. (2003). Assessment of subjective outcome of hearing aid fitting: getting the client's point of view. International Journal of Audiology, 42 , S90-S96. Cox, R. M., & Alexander, G. C. (1995). The abbreviated profile of hearing aid benefit. Ear Hear, 16(2), 176-186 Cox, R. M., & Alexander, G. C. (2002). The International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids (IOI-HA): psychometric properties the English version. International Journal of Audiology, 41, 30-35 Cox, R. M., & Alexander, G. C., & Beyer, C. M. (2003). Norms for the International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 14(8), 403-412 Cox, R. M., Hyde, M., Gatehouse, S., Noble, W., Dillon, H., & Bentler, R., et al. (2000). Optimal Outcome Measures, Research Priorities, and International Cooperation. Ear Hear, 21, 106S-115S Cox, R. M., Stephens, D. & Kramer, S. E. (2002). Translations of the International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids (IOI-HA). International Journal of Audiology, 41, 3-26 Demorest, M. E., & DeHaven, G. P. (1993). Psychometric adequacy of self-assessment scales. Seminars in Hearing, 14(4), 314-325 Demorest, M. E., & Walden, B. E. (1984). Psychometric principles in the selection, interpretation, and evaluation of communication self-assessment inventories. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 49 , 226-240. 28 Dillon, H., James, A., & Ginis, J. (1997). Client Oriented Scale of Improvement (COSI) and its relationship to several other measures of benefit and satisfaction provided by hearing aids. . Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 8 (1), 27-43. Doyle, J., Schaefer, C., Dacakis, G., & Wong, L. L. N. (2002). Hearing levels and hearing handicap in Cantonese-speaking Australians. Asia Pacific Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing, 7, 92-100 Doyle, J., & Wong, L. L. N. (1996). Mismatch between aspects of hearing impairment and hearing disability/handicap in adult/elderly Cantonese speakers: Some hypotheses concerning cultural and linguistic influences. Journal of the Amercian Academy of Audiology, 7, 442-446 Field, A. (2000). Discovering Statistics Using SPSS for Windows. Advanced Techniques for the Beginner. London: SAGE Publications Limited. Franks, J. R., & Beckmann, N. J. (1985). Rejection of hearing aids: Attitudes of a geriatric sample. Ear & Hearing, 6(3), 161-166 Gagné, J. -P. (2000). What is treatment evaluation research? What is its relationship to the goals of audiological rehabilitation? Who are the stakeholders of this type of research?. Ear & Hearing, 21 (4), 60S-88S. Gratton, M. A, Vázquez, A. E. & (2003). Age-related hearing loss: current research. Current Opinion in Otolaryngology & Head and Neck Surgery, 11 (5), 367-371. Heuermann, H., Kinkel, M., & Tchorz, J. (2005). Comparison of psychometric properties of the International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids (IOI-HA) in various studies. International Journal of Audiology, 44, 102-109 Hyde, M. L. (2000). Reasonable Psychometric Standards for Self-Report Outcome Measures 29 in Audiological Rehabilitation. Ear & Hearing, 21(4), 24S-36S ICRA. (n.d.). International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids (IOI-HA). Retrieved April 12, 2009, from http://www.icra.nu/index.htm Ip, P. I. N. (2007). Norms for the International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids (IOI-HA) in Hong Kong. Unpublished bachelor dissertation, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong. Jupiter, T., & Palagonia, C. L. (2001). The Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly Screening Version Adapted for Use with Elderly Chinese American Individuals. American Journal of Audiology, 10, 99-103 Kendall, P. C., & Sheldrick, R. C. (2000). Normative data for normative comparisons. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68(5), 767-773 Kramer, S. E., Goverts, S. T., Dreschler, W. A., Boymans, M., & Festen, J. M. (2002). International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids (IOI-HA): results from The Netherlands. International Journal of Audiology, 41, 36-41 Meister, H., Lausberg, I., Kiessling, J., Wedel, H., & Walger, M. (2003). Modeling relationships between various domains of hearing aid provision. Audiology & Neuro-Otology, 8, 153-165 Meister, H., Lausberg, I., Kiessling, J., Wedel, H., & Walger, M. (2003). (2005). Detecting components of hearing aid fitting using a self-assessment-inventory. European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, 262, 580-586 Mohamed, W. M. M. (2005). Norms for the Arcbic International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids. . The International Journal of Otorhinolaryngology, 1 (1). Pallant, J. (2005). SPSS survival manual: a step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS for Windows (version 12) (2nd.Ed.). Maidenhead, Berkshire: Open University Press. Salomon, G., Vesterager, V., & Jagd, M. (1988). Age-related hearing difficulties. Audiology, 30 27, 164-178 Stephens, D. (2002). The International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids (IOI-HA) and its relationship to the Client-oriented Scale of Improvement (COSI). International Journal of Audiology, 41, 42-47 Surr, R. K., Schuchman, G. I., & Montgomery, A. A. (1978). Factors Influencing Use of Hearing Aids. Archives of Otolaryngology—Head & Neck Surgery, 104(12), 732-736 Takahashi, G., Martinez, C.D., Beamer, S., Bridges, J., Noffsinger, D., & Sugiura et al. (2007). Subjective measures of hearing aid benefit and satisfaction in the NIDCD/VA follow-up study. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 18, 323-349 Wong, L. L. N. Development of the Chinese version of the Profile of Hearing Aid Performance (PHAP-C). Division of Speech and Hearing Sciences, University of Hong Kong, manuscript in preparation. Wong, L. L. N., Hickson, L., & McPherson, B. (2003). Hearing aid satisfaction: What does research from the past 20 years say? Trends in Amplification, 7, 117-161. Wong, L. L. N., Hickson, L., & McPherson, B. (2004). Hearing aid expectations among Chinese first-time users: relationships to post-fitting satisfaction. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Audiology, 26(1), 53-69 Wong, P. W. Y. (2005). Rejection of hearing aid use among Hong Kong elderly. Published bachelor dissertation, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong. Retrieved 8 April, 2009, from Dragon libraries catalogue. Zechmeister, J. S., Zechmeister, E. B., & Shaughnessy, J. J. (2001). Essentials of Research Methods in Psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill. 31 Appendix 1: 國際助聽器效能評估表以下有七條關於你用助聽器的問題，請你按照一般的情況來回答，並在答案左邊的方格劃上√號. 1. 請你想一想在過去兩個星期你是否經常戴助聽機呢？你平均每日戴機戴幾多小時呢？ □ 無戴 □ 每日戴少於一小時 □ 每日戴一至四小時 □ 每日戴四至八小時 □ 每日戴超過八小時 2. 請你想一想在戴機前，你最想在什麽情況下聽得清楚呢？在過去兩個星期，助聽器在這些情況下對你有多少幫助呢？ □完全無幫助 □有少少幫助 □麻麻地有幫助 □都幾有幫助 □非常有幫助 3. 在這些你最想聽得清楚的情況下戴機，你仍然遇到多少困難呢？ □極度有困難 □都幾有困難 □麻麻地有困難 □有少少困難 □完全無困難 4. 當你考慮了所有因素後，你認為這架助聽器有沒有價值？ □完全無價值 □有少少價值 □麻麻地有價值 □都幾有價值 □非常有價值 5. 在過去兩個星期，你認為戴機後，弱聽的問題對你有多大影響？ □極度有影響 □都幾有影響 □麻麻地有影響 □有少少影響 □完全無影響 6. 在過去兩個星期，你認為戴機後，你的弱聽問題令其他人有多大困擾？ □極度困擾 □都幾困擾 □麻麻地困擾 □有少少困擾 □完全無困擾 7. 當你考慮所有因素後，你認為這架助聽器對你所享受的生活，起了什麽改變？ □變得差咗 □無改變 □變得好咗少少 □變得好咗好多 □變得非常好 32 Appendix 2: 聽力功能調查表下列有四十一題選擇問題，在回答時，請按照情況圈上適當的號碼來代表你的答案，例如那情況是經常發生的，便圈上"1"。如果很少的話便圈上"6"。亦可參考括弧中的百份比填寫。如果那情況是從來不會發生，便請你想像自己在那種情況下，載了助聽器，你的反應與感受會是怎樣。 1 = 經常 (在 99%的情況下會發生) 2 = 多數 (在 87%的情況下會發生) 3 = 一般 (在 75%的情況下會發生) 4 = 一半 (在 50%的情況下會發生) 5 = 間中 (在 25%的情況下會發生) 6 = 很少 (在 12%的情況下會發生) 7 = 從不 (在 1%的情況下會發生) 經常 99% 多數 87% 一般 75% 一半 50% 間中 25% 很少 12% 從不 1% 1. 當我與另一人在寧靜的環境中傾談，我會覺得說話內容很難明白。 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2. 當泠氣機開著時，別人的說話很難明白。 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. 當我在家中獨自收看電視時，我能夠明白新聞報告。 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4. 當我在寧靜的公園與朋友散步時，我能夠明白對方的說話。 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5 在寧靜的診所病房中，醫生的說話很難明白。 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 當我正與別人交談時，而身邊的人又在低聲地說話時，我要很努力才能明白對方。 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7 當我的家人用正常的音量與我交談時，我能明白他們。 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 當我與家人一邊看電視，一邊吃飯時，我不能夠明白家人的說話。 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 平日週圍環境的聲音太細聲，我聽不清楚。 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 小童的叫聲有點刺耳。 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 11 我避免群眾，因為聲浪太大令我覺得不舒服。 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 經常 99% 多數 87% 一般 75% 一半 50% 間中 25% 很少 12% 從不 1% 12 我能夠在靜的地方明白電話中的內容。 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 33 13 我在人群中能夠與別人溝通。 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 14 在巴士上我覺得別人的說話很難明白。 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 15 電話的聲響太刺耳了。 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 16 修路工程的聲音太大聲令我覺得不舒服。 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 17 當我乘坐私家車或的士時，我發覺前面司機的說話很難明白。 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 18 在嘈吵的酒樓中，我常混淆別人的談話內容。 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 經常 99% 多數 87% 一般 75% 一半 50% 間中 25% 很少 12% 從不 1% 19 流水聲(例如沖廁所和開水喉的聲音)太大聲令我覺得不舒服。 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 20 在地鐵車箱內，我覺得別人的說話很難明白。 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 21 我能夠在靜的環境中明白收音機的廣播。 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 22 我覺得在人多升降機內，別人的說話很難明白。 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 23 平日週圍環境的聲音，就算對其他人來說不太大聲，對我來說，是大聲到有不舒服的感覺。 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 24 當我與幾個朋友傾談時，就算週圍環境很靜，我仍要很努力才能明白其中一人的說話。 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 34 Appendix 3: 助聽器使用者滿意度調查表下列問題是有關你戴著現在的助聽器在不同的情況下聆聽的能力、這些聆聽能力與你配助聽器前所期望的分別、及你在這些情況下對你的助聽器的滿意程度。請圈出你的答案及填寫分數。情況戴助聽器後，我在這情況下聽力分數有 … （0至 100 分，以 100分為滿分）戴助聽器後，我在這情況的聆聽能力 1 比期望差很多 2 比期望差一點 3 跟期望差不多 4 比期望好一點 5 比期望好很多我對我的助聽器在這情況下的滿意分數有… （0至 100分，以 100分為滿分）自己與家人/朋友溝通 1 2 3 4 5 在靜的環境與人溝通 1 2 3 4 5 在嘈的環境與人溝通 1 2 3 4 5 看電視 1 2 3 4 5 用電話與人溝通 1 2 3 4 5 聽到電話聲響或門鐘響 1 2 3 4 5 整體滿意程度一般黎講，你對呢架助聽器有幾滿意？如果要俾分，由零至一百分，零分代表完全唔滿意，一百分代表極度滿意，你會俾幾多分呢？一般黎講，你對幫你配助聽器既人有幾滿意？如果要俾分，由零至一百分，零分代表完全滿意，一百分代表極度滿意，你會俾幾多分呢？ 35 Appendix 4: 同意書 (中文樣本) 國際助聽器效能評估表的有效性和標準數據你被邀請參與一項由香港大學言語及聽覺科學系學生許穎欣學術研究此學術研究的目的這是一項關於國際助聽器效能評估表的學術研究，旨在探討此評估表的有效性和收集它的標準數據。步驟你需要完成三份有關佩戴助聽器後的效能的問卷(需時約十五至二十分鐘). 這三份問卷是國際助聽器效能評估表, 聽力功能調查表和助聽器使用者滿意度調查表. 潛在危機或不安是次研究並不會為閣下帶來任何潛在危機或不安利益和報酬是次研究並不為閣下提供個人利益或報酬, 但所搜集數據將對研究此效能評估表提供寶貴的資料資料保密是次研究將會收集閣下的聽力圖, 聽力測試結果及助聽器驗配資料。所收集的資料只作研究用途，個人資料將絕對保密。參與參與純屬自願性質, 閣下可以隨時停止參與而不會因此影響到日後所接受的聽力服務問題或查詢如日後你對是項研究有任何查詢或任何問題，請與研究員許穎欣聯絡(電話是 92645933 或電子郵件到 h0516414@hkusua.hku.hk.)。如你想知道更多有關研究參與者的權益，請聯絡香港大學非臨床研究操守委員會 (2241-5267)。簽署我_________________________明白以上內容，並願意參與是項研究。參與者簽署日期\ 請在後頁填寫你的個人資料。 p. 36 個人資料編號:________________ 年齡/ 性別: _________________ 學歷程度 (請圈合適的方格) 無接受教育/小學/中學/大專_____ 收入 (請 “√” 合適的方格) 無收入口, <$2000口,$2000-5000口有聽力問題多久: _______年/ _______月___________ 哪邊耳朵佩戴助聽器: 左耳/ 右耳/ 兩邊都有_____ 佩戴助聽器有多久: _______年/ _______月___________ 是否第一次佩戴助聽器: 是 / 否 (由研究員填寫) Type of hearing loss: Conductive / Sensorineural / Mixed Degree of hearing loss (Averaged across 500, 1, 2k Hz) Left ear ________ Right ear _________ OR 500 Hz 1000 Hz 2000 Hz 4000Hz Left ear Right ear Type and style of hearing aids: Analog / Digital / Body-worn / Behind-the-ear In-the-ear / In-the-canal / Complete-in-canal_

for Hearing Aids (IOI-HA)

Abstract

Extracted data

for Hearing Aids (IOI-HA)

Abstract

Extracted data

Related items

Related items