Normative Values for the Inner EAR Scale.
audiometry
clinical decisions
hearing loss
normative value
patient intake
patient-reported outcome measure
validated instrument
Journal
Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery
ISSN: 1097-6817
Titre abrégé: Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg
Pays: England
ID NLM: 8508176
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 2023
11 2023
Historique:
revised:
03
03
2023
received:
05
12
2022
accepted:
25
03
2023
medline:
26
10
2023
pubmed:
17
4
2023
entrez:
16
4
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To determine normative values for the Inner Effectiveness of Auditory Rehabilitation (Inner EAR) scale, a validated instrument utilized to study the impact of hearing loss and potential treatments. Observational outcomes study. Academic medical center and community care sites. We included patients who were at least 18 years of age and completed the Inner EAR scale, pure-tone audiometry, and word recognition score assessment. Based on audiometry results, patients were categorized as having: (1) normal bilateral hearing, (2) unilateral hearing loss, and (3) bilateral hearing loss. The distributions of Inner EAR scale scores were assessed within each category. Fisher's exact test was utilized to determine whether data-driven threshold values could discriminate among the 3 clinical groups. Two hundred and twenty-two consecutive patients with hearing-related complaints met inclusion criteria. Mean Inner EAR scores for patients with bilateral hearing loss (29.2, interquartile range [IQR] 10-41.5), unilateral hearing loss (38.9, IQR 23-49), and normal hearing (46.6, IQR 31-62) were significantly different (analysis of variance F < 0.0001). An Inner EAR score threshold of 50 supported the ability to statistically significantly discriminate between bilateral hearing loss and normal hearing (p = .003), as well as between unilateral hearing loss and normal hearing (p = .015). An Inner EAR score normative threshold value of 50 provides significant discriminatory ability between normal hearing and unilateral or bilateral hearing loss on audiometry. Normative values provide useful, frequently referenced data when assessing responses to treatment. Based on these data, this threshold may help distinguish patients with and without perceived functional impact from hearing loss.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Observational Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1163-1169Informations de copyright
© 2023 American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Foundation.
Références
Lin FR. Hearing loss prevalence in the United States. Arch Intern Med. 2011;171(20):1851-1852. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2011.506
Blackwell DL, Lucas JW, Clarke TC. Summary health statistics for U.S. adults: national health interview survey, 2012. Vital Health Stat. 2014;10(260):1-161.
Bainbridge KE, Wallhagen MI. Hearing loss in an aging American population: extent, impact, and management. Annu Rev Public Health. 2014;35:139-152. doi:10.1146/annurev-publhealth-032013-182510
Oyler RF, Oyler AL, Matkin ND. Unilateral hearing loss. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch. 1988;19(2):201-210. doi:10.1044/0161-1461.1902.201
Emmett SD, Francis HW. The socioeconomic impact of hearing loss in U.S. adults. Otol Neurotol. 2015;36(3):545-550. doi:10.1097/MAO.0000000000000562
Jung D, Bhattacharyya N. Association of hearing loss with decreased employment and income among adults in the United States. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2012;121(12):771-775. doi:10.1177/000348941212101201
Helvik A-S, Krokstad S, Tambs K. Socioeconomic inequalities in hearing loss in a healthy population sample: The HUNT Study. Am J Public Health. 2009;99(8):1376-1378. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2007.133215
Hasson D, Theorell T, Westerlund H, Canlon B. Prevalence and characteristics of hearing problems in a working and non-working Swedish population. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2010;64(5):453-460. doi:10.1136/jech.2009.095430
Järvelin MR, Mäki-torkko E, Sorri MJ, Rantakallio PT. Effect of hearing impairment on educational outcomes and employment up to the age of 25 years in northern Finland. Br J Audiol. 1997;31(3):165-175. doi:10.3109/03005364000000019
Hogan A, O'Loughlin K, Davis A, Kendig H. Hearing loss and paid employment: Australian population survey findings. Int J Audiol. 2009;48(3):117-122. doi:10.1080/14992020802449008
Nordvik Ø, Laugen Heggdal PO, Brännström J, Vassbotn F, Aarstad AK, Aarstad HJ. Generic quality of life in persons with hearing loss: a systematic literature review. BMC Ear Nose Throat Disord. 2018;18:1. doi:10.1186/s12901-018-0051-6
Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. Sensory or communication disorders. Healthy People 2030. 2020. Accessed October 10, 2020. https://health.gov/healthypeople/objectives-and-data/browse-objectives#health-conditions
Nondahl DM, Cruickshanks KJ, Wiley TL, Tweed TS, Klein R, Klein BEK. Accuracy of self-reported hearing loss. Int J Audiol. 1998;37(5):295-301. doi:10.3109/00206099809072983
Bagai A. Does this patient have hearing impairment? JAMA. 2006;295(4):416-428. doi:10.1001/jama.295.4.416
Yueh B, McDowell JA, Collins M, Souza PE, Loovis CF, Deyo RA. Development and validation of the effectiveness of auditory rehabilitation scale. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2005;131(10):851-856. doi:10.1001/archotol.131.10.851
Wallhagen MI, Strawbridge WJ. Hearing loss education for older adults in primary care clinics: benefits of a concise educational brochure. Geriatr Nurs. 2017;38(6):527-530. doi:10.1016/j.gerinurse.2017.03.015
Collins MP, Liu C-F, Taylor L, Souza PE, Yueh B. Hearing aid effectiveness after aural rehabilitation: individual versus group trial results. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2013;50(4):585-598. doi:10.1682/jrrd.2012.03.0049
Anderson M, Rallapalli V, Schoof T, Souza P, Arehart K. The use of self-report measures to examine changes in perception in response to fittings using different signal processing parameters. Int J Audiol. 2018;57(11):809-815. doi:10.1080/14992027.2018.1490035
Rhee JS, Sullivan CD, Frank DO, Kimbell JS, Garcia GJM. A systematic review of patient-reported nasal obstruction scores: defining normative and symptomatic ranges in surgical patients. JAMA Facial Plast Surg. 2014;16(3):219-225. doi:10.1001/jamafacial.2013.2473
Krishnan E, Sokka T, Häkkinen A, Hubert H, Hannonen P. Normative values for the Health Assessment Questionnaire disability index: benchmarking disability in the general population. Arthritis Rheum. 2004;50(3):953-960. doi:10.1002/art.20048
Strand V, Tundia N, Bergman M, et al. Upadacitinib improves patient-reported outcomes vs placebo or adalimumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: results from SELECT-COMPARE. Rheumatology. 2021;60(12):5583-5594. doi:10.1093/rheumatology/keab158
Freedman D, Manly J. 2015. Use of normative data and measures of performance validity and symptom validity in assessment of cognitive function.
Jessen A, Ho AD, Corrales CE, Yueh B, Shin JJ. Improving measurement efficiency of the Inner EAR Scale with item response theory. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2018;158(6):1093-1100. doi:10.1177/0194599818760528
Mohan S, Corrales CE, Yueh B, Shin JJ. Assessment of disease-specific and general patient-reported outcome measures of hearing health. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2018;158(4):702-709. doi:10.1177/0194599818757998
Dixon PR, Feeny D, Tomlinson G, Cushing S, Chen JM, Krahn MD. Health-related quality of life changes associated with hearing loss. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2020;146(7):630-638. doi:10.1001/jamaoto.2020.0674
Cella D, Riley W, Stone A, et al. The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) developed and tested its first wave of adult self-reported health outcome item banks: 2005-2008. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(11):1179-1194. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.011
Health MeasuresInterpret scores: PROMIS®. Accessed December 12, 2018. http://www.healthmeasures.net/score-and-interpret/interpret-scores/promis
Health Measures. T-score maps. Accessed November 1, 2018. http://www.healthmeasures.net/score-and-interpret/t-score-maps
Department of Veterans Affairs. The handbook of standard procedures and best practices for audiology compensation and pension exams. 2010. Accessed November 22, 2020. https://www.benefits.va.gov/PREDISCHARGE/DOCS/disexm05.pdf
Tanaka C, Taniguchi LD, Lew HL. Diagnosis and rehabilitation of hearing disorders in the elderly. In: Cifu DX, Lew HL, Oh-Park M, eds. Geriatric Rehabilitation. Elsevier; 2018:145-159. doi:10.1016/B978-0-323-54454-2.00011-X
Gelfand SA. Essentials of Audiology. Georg Thieme Verlag; 2016. doi:10.1055/b-006-161125
Gurgel RK, Jackler RK, Dobie RA, Popelka GR. A new standardized format for reporting hearing outcome in clinical trials. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2012;147(5):803-807. doi:10.1177/0194599812458401
Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J R Stat Soc Series B Methodol. 1995;57(1):289-300. doi:10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.x
Yueh B, Collins MP, Souza PE, et al. Screening for Auditory Impairment-Which Hearing Assessment Test (SAI-WHAT): RCT design and baseline characteristics. Contemp Clin Trials. 2007;28(3):303-315. doi:10.1016/j.cct.2006.08.008
Yueh B, Collins MP, Souza PE, et al. Long-term effectiveness of screening for hearing loss: the screening for auditory impairment-which hearing assessment test (SAI-WHAT) randomized trial: long-term effectiveness of screening for hearing loss. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2010;58(3):427-434. doi:10.1111/j.1532-5415.2010.02738.x
Shin JJ, Carroll TL, Prince AA, Landman AB. The utility and feasibility of extending beyond traditional patient descriptions in daily practice. Laryngoscope. 2020;130(suppl 3):S1-S13. doi:10.1002/lary.28467
Salmon MK, Brant J, Leibowitz D. Audiogram interpretation. StatPearls. StatPearls Publishing; 2022.
Kuk F, Ludvigsen C. Reconsidering the concept of the aided threshold for nonlinear hearing AIDS. Trends Amplif. 2003;7(3):77-97. doi:10.1177/108471380300700302