Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Semin Hear 2021; 42(04): 365-372
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1739369
Review Article

Functional Assessment of Hearing Aid Benefit: Incorporating Verification and Aided Speech Recognition Testing into Routine Practice

Sarah A. Sydlowski
1   Cleveland Clinic – Head and Neck Institute, Cleveland, Ohio
,
Michelle King
1   Cleveland Clinic – Head and Neck Institute, Cleveland, Ohio
2   Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio
,
Karen Petter
1   Cleveland Clinic – Head and Neck Institute, Cleveland, Ohio
,
Meagan Lewis Bachmann
3   Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center, Winston-Salem, North Carolina
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Potential cochlear implant (CI) candidates arrive to the clinic with a variety of hearing loss configurations, hearing aid history, and aided capabilities. CI candidacy is primarily determined based on aided speech recognition capability, which relies on benefit derived from use of hearing aids. Therefore, contemporary evaluation for CI candidacy should incorporate a battery of testing to determine abilities and limitations and must be predicated on appropriate verification of the hearing aid fitting. However, recent reports, including a retrospective chart review of patients presenting to Cleveland Clinic for CI evaluation, suggest that a significant subset of patients may be using inappropriately fit or programmed amplification. Thus, a combination of simulated real-ear measurements and aided speech recognition testing is essential for fully assessing the effect of amplification and ultimately determination of CI candidacy. Furthermore, waiting to incorporate these tools until CI candidacy is suspected may delay timely identification of problems or need to change technology. Utilization of evidence-based decision drivers ultimately leads clinicians to timely patient-specific interventions which may include surgical intervention or other amplification options. As audiology moves into a healthcare era in which payers consider the benefit of our services to overall health and well-being, demonstrating timely, optimal outcomes using thorough, multifactorial evaluation is essential.

Keywords

hearing aid verification - cochlear implant candidacy - aided speech recognition


Publication History

Article published online:
09 December 2021

© 2021. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Simpson AN, Matthews LJ, Cassarly C, Dubno JR. Time from hearing aid candidacy to hearing aid adoption: a longitudinal cohort study. Ear Hear 2019; 40 (03) 468-476
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Sorkin DL. Cochlear implantation in the world's largest medical device market: utilization and awareness of cochlear implants in the United States. Cochlear Implants Int 2013; 14 Suppl 1(Suppl 1): S4-12
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Deep NL, Dowling EM, Jethanamest D, Carlson ML. Cochlear implantation: an overview. J Neurol Surg B Skull Base 2019; 80 (02) 169-177
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 McRackan TR, Ahlstrom JB, Clinkscales WB, Meyer TA, Dubno JR. Clinical implications of word recognition differences in earphone and aided conditions. Otol Neurotol 2016; 37 (10) 1475-1481
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 McRackan TR, Fabie JE, Burton JA, Munawar S, Holcomb MA, Dubno JR. Earphone and aided word recognition differences in cochlear implant candidates. Otol Neurotol 2018; 39 (07) e543-e549
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Zwolan TA, Schvartz-Leyzac KC, Pleasant T. Development of a 60/60 guideline for referring adults for a traditional cochlear implant candidacy evaluation. Otol Neurotol 2020; 41 (07) 895-900
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Gubbels SP, Gartrell BC, Ploch JL, Hanson KD. Can routine office-based audiometry predict cochlear implant evaluation results?. Laryngoscope 2017; 127 (01) 216-222
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Arnoldner C, Lin VYW. Expanded selection criteria in adult cochlear implantation. Cochlear Implants Int 2013; 14 (Suppl. 04) S10-S13
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Gifford RH, Dorman MF, Shallop JK, Sydlowski SA. Evidence for the expansion of adult cochlear implant candidacy. Ear Hear 2010; 31 (02) 186-194
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Advanced Bionics LLC, Cochlear Americas, MED-EL Corporation. Minimum speech test battery for adult cochlear implant users, 2011. Available at: http://www.auditorypotential.com/MSTBfiles/MSTBManual2011-06-20%20.pdf. Published June 2011
    Google Scholar
  • 11 Luxford WM. Ad Hoc Subcommittee of the Committee on Hearing and Equilibrium of the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery. Minimum speech test battery for postlingually deafened adult cochlear implant patients. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2001; 124 (02) 125-126
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Spahr AJ, Dorman MF, Litvak LM. et al. Development and validation of the AzBio sentence lists. Ear Hear 2012; 33 (01) 112-117
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Mueller HG, Hall JW. Audiologists' Desk Reference. San Diego: Singular Publishing Group; 1998
    Google Scholar
  • 14 Newall P, Oliver J. Hearing aid optimization in the evaluation of cochlear implant candidacy. Adv Otorhinolaryngol 2000; 57: 281-283
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Holder JT, Reynolds SM, Sunderhaus LW, Gifford RH. Current profile of adults presenting for preoperative cochlear implant evaluation. Trends Hear 2018; 22: 2331216518755288
    Google Scholar
  • 16 Kochkin S. MarkeTrak VIII: Reducing patient visits through verification & validation. The Hearing Review. Available at: https://www.hearingreview.com/hearing-products/marketrak-viii-reducing-patient-visits-through-verification-amp-validation. Published February 2, 2018. Accessed August 11, 2021
    Google Scholar
  • 17 Prentiss S, Snapp H, Zwolan T. Audiology practices in the preoperative evaluation and management of adult cochlear implant candidates. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2020; 146 (02) 136-142
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Mueller HG, Picou EM. Survey examines popularity of real-ear probe-microphone measures. Hear J 2010; 63: 27-32
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Hawkins DB, Cook JA. Hearing aid software predictive gain values: how accurate are they?. Hear J 2003; 56: 26-34
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Valente M, Oeding K, Brockmeyer A, Smith S, Kallogjeri D. Differences in word and phoneme recognition in quiet, sentence recognition in noise, and subjective outcomes between manufacturer first-fit and hearing aids programmed to NAL-NL2 using real-ear measures. J Am Acad Audiol 2018; 29 (08) 706-721
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Messersmith JJ, Entwisle L, Warren S, Scott M. Clinical practice guidelines: cochlear implants. J Am Acad Audiol 2019; 30 (10) 827-844
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Turton L, Souza P, Thibodeau L. et al. Guidelines for best practice in the audiological management of adults with severe and profound hearing loss. Semin Hear 2020; 41 (03) 141-246
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Peterson GE, Lehiste I. Revised CNC lists for auditory tests. J Speech Hear Disord 1962; 27: 62-70
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Thornton AR, Raffin MJ. Speech-discrimination scores modeled as a binomial variable. J Speech Hear Res 1978; 21 (03) 507-518
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Tillman TW, Carhart R. An expanded test for speech discrimination utilizing CNC monosyllabic words. Northwestern University Auditory; Test No. 6. Tech Re SAM-TR. 1966: 1-12
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Porter ME. What is value in health care?. N Engl J Med 2010; 363 (26) 2477-2481
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Accountable Care Organizations (ACOS). CMS. Accessed August 11, 2021 at: https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Payment/ACO
    Google Scholar