The Revised Hearing Handicap Inventory and Pure-Tone Average Predict Hearing Aid Use Equally Well.

IF 1.4 4区医学 Q3 AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY American Journal of Audiology Pub Date : 2023-12-29 DOI:10.1044/2023_AJA-23-00213

Lauren K Dillard, Lois J Matthews, Judy R Dubno

{"title":"The Revised Hearing Handicap Inventory and Pure-Tone Average Predict Hearing Aid Use Equally Well.","authors":"Lauren K Dillard, Lois J Matthews, Judy R Dubno","doi":"10.1044/2023_AJA-23-00213","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: This study aimed to (a) compare the Revised Hearing Handicap Inventory (RHHI) and pure-tone average (PTA) in their abilities to predict hearing aid use and (b) report the optimal cut-point values on the RHHI and PTA that predict hearing aid use.Method: Participants were from a community-based cohort study. We evaluated the ability of the RHHI and PTA as (a) continuous variables and (b) binary variables characterized by the optimal cut point determined by the Youden Index to predict hearing aid use. RHHI scores range from 0 to 72, and PTA was defined as averaged thresholds at frequencies 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, and 4.0 kHz in the worse ear. We used logistic regression models and receiver operating characteristic curves with corresponding concordance statistics (c-statistics) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to determine the predictive ability of models and chi-square tests to determine whether c-statistics were significantly different.Results: This study included 581 participants (Mage = 72.9 [SD = 9.9] years; 59.9% female; 14.3% Minority race). The c-statistics for the RHHI (0.79, 95% CI [0.75, 0.83]) and PTA (0.81, 95% CI [0.78, 0.85]), as continuous variables, were not significantly different (p = .25). The optimal cut points for the RHHI and PTA to predict hearing aid use were 6 points and 32.5 dB HL, respectively. The c-statistics for the RHHI (0.72, 95% CI [0.68, 0.76]) and PTA (0.75, 95% CI [0.71, 0.79]), as binary variables, were not significantly different (p = .27).Conclusion: The RHHI and PTA are similar in their ability to predict hearing aid use.","PeriodicalId":49241,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Audiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10950317/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Audiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1044/2023_AJA-23-00213","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: This study aimed to (a) compare the Revised Hearing Handicap Inventory (RHHI) and pure-tone average (PTA) in their abilities to predict hearing aid use and (b) report the optimal cut-point values on the RHHI and PTA that predict hearing aid use.

Method: Participants were from a community-based cohort study. We evaluated the ability of the RHHI and PTA as (a) continuous variables and (b) binary variables characterized by the optimal cut point determined by the Youden Index to predict hearing aid use. RHHI scores range from 0 to 72, and PTA was defined as averaged thresholds at frequencies 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, and 4.0 kHz in the worse ear. We used logistic regression models and receiver operating characteristic curves with corresponding concordance statistics (c-statistics) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to determine the predictive ability of models and chi-square tests to determine whether c-statistics were significantly different.

Results: This study included 581 participants (M_age = 72.9 [SD = 9.9] years; 59.9% female; 14.3% Minority race). The c-statistics for the RHHI (0.79, 95% CI [0.75, 0.83]) and PTA (0.81, 95% CI [0.78, 0.85]), as continuous variables, were not significantly different (p = .25). The optimal cut points for the RHHI and PTA to predict hearing aid use were 6 points and 32.5 dB HL, respectively. The c-statistics for the RHHI (0.72, 95% CI [0.68, 0.76]) and PTA (0.75, 95% CI [0.71, 0.79]), as binary variables, were not significantly different (p = .27).

Conclusion: The RHHI and PTA are similar in their ability to predict hearing aid use.

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

修订版听力障碍量表和纯音平均值对助听器使用的预测效果相同。

目的：本研究旨在（a）比较修订版听力障碍量表（RHHI）和纯音平均值（PTA）预测助听器使用情况的能力；（b）报告 RHHI 和 PTA 预测助听器使用情况的最佳切点值：参与者来自一项社区队列研究。我们评估了 RHHI 和 PTA 作为（a）连续变量和（b）二元变量预测助听器使用情况的能力，二者的特征是由尤登指数确定的最佳切点。RHHI 分值范围为 0 到 72，PTA 定义为较差耳朵在 0.5、1.0、2.0 和 4.0 kHz 频率下的平均阈值。我们使用逻辑回归模型和接收器操作特征曲线以及相应的一致性统计量（c 统计量）和 95% 置信区间（CI）来确定模型的预测能力，并使用卡方检验来确定 c 统计量是否存在显著差异：本研究包括 581 名参与者（年龄 72.9 [SD = 9.9] 岁；59.9% 为女性；14.3% 为少数民族）。作为连续变量，RHHI（0.79，95% CI [0.75，0.83]）和 PTA（0.81，95% CI [0.78，0.85]）的 c 统计量无显著差异（p = .25）。RHHI 和 PTA 预测助听器使用的最佳切点分别为 6 点和 32.5 dB HL。作为二元变量，RHHI（0.72，95% CI [0.68，0.76]）和 PTA（0.75，95% CI [0.71，0.79]）的 c 统计量差异不大（p = .27）：结论：RHHI 和 PTA 预测助听器使用情况的能力相似。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文去求助

来源期刊

American Journal of Audiology AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY-OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY

CiteScore

3.00

自引率

16.70%

发文量

163

审稿时长

>12 weeks

期刊介绍： Mission: AJA publishes peer-reviewed research and other scholarly articles pertaining to clinical audiology methods and issues, and serves as an outlet for discussion of related professional and educational issues and ideas. The journal is an international outlet for research on clinical research pertaining to screening, diagnosis, management and outcomes of hearing and balance disorders as well as the etiologies and characteristics of these disorders. The clinical orientation of the journal allows for the publication of reports on audiology as implemented nationally and internationally, including novel clinical procedures, approaches, and cases. AJA seeks to advance evidence-based practice by disseminating the results of new studies as well as providing a forum for critical reviews and meta-analyses of previously published work. Scope: The broad field of clinical audiology, including audiologic/aural rehabilitation; balance and balance disorders; cultural and linguistic diversity; detection, diagnosis, prevention, habilitation, rehabilitation, and monitoring of hearing loss; hearing aids, cochlear implants, and hearing-assistive technology; hearing disorders; lifespan perspectives on auditory function; speech perception; and tinnitus.