Shi Lu-Feng, Doherty Karen A, Kordas Tammy M, Pellegrino Joseph T
Gebbie Hearing Clinic, Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York, USA.
J Am Acad Audiol. 2007 Jun;18(6):482-95. doi: 10.3766/jaaa.18.6.3.
Currently published hearing aid fitting protocols recommend speech-in-noise testing and loudness measures, but it remains unclear how these measures affect hearing aid benefit and user satisfaction. This study compared two protocols in their effects on benefit and satisfaction. Protocol A included an electroacoustic analysis, real-ear measures, and hearing aid adjustments based on users' comments. Protocol B included all of Protocol A and a speech-in-noise test, loudness discomfort levels, and aided loudness. Thirty-two participants completed the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) and the Satisfaction with Amplification in Daily Life (SADL) at 45 days and three months post-initial fitting. Fewer hearing aid adjustments were made to the hearing aids for participants fitted with Protocol B than participants fitted with Protocol A, but final gains were similar for both groups. Although similar APHAB scores were obtained for both protocols, SADL scores decreased between 45 days and three months for Protocol A.
目前已发表的助听器验配方案推荐进行噪声环境下言语测试和响度测量，但尚不清楚这些测量如何影响助听器的助听效果和用户满意度。本研究比较了两种方案对助听效果和满意度的影响。方案A包括电声分析、真耳测量以及根据用户反馈进行的助听器调整。方案B包括方案A的所有内容以及噪声环境下言语测试、响度不适阈和助听听度。32名参与者在初次验配后45天和3个月时完成了《助听器益处简表》（APHAB）和《日常生活中对放大声音的满意度》（SADL）。与采用方案A验配的参与者相比，采用方案B验配的参与者对助听器进行的调整较少，但两组的最终增益相似。虽然两种方案的APHAB得分相似，但方案A的SADL得分在45天至3个月之间有所下降。
