Wu Yu-Hsiang, Stangl Elizabeth, Zhang Xuyang, Bentler Ruth A
Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242.
J Am Acad Audiol. 2015 Nov-Dec;26(10):872-84. doi: 10.3766/jaaa.15034.
Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) is a methodology involving repeated assessments/surveys to collect data describing respondents' current or very recent experiences and related contexts in their natural environments. The use of EMA in audiology research is growing.
This study examined the construct validity (i.e., the degree to which a measurement reflects what it is intended to measure) of EMA in terms of measuring speech understanding and related listening context. Experiment 1 investigated the extent to which individuals can accurately report their speech recognition performance and characterize the listening context in controlled environments. Experiment 2 investigated whether the data aggregated across multiple EMA surveys conducted in uncontrolled, real-world environments would reveal a valid pattern that was consistent with the established relationships between speech understanding, hearing aid use, listening context, and lifestyle.
This is an observational study.
Twelve and twenty-seven adults with hearing impairment participated in Experiments 1 and 2, respectively.
In the laboratory testing of Experiment 1, participants estimated their speech recognition performance in settings wherein the signal-to-noise ratio was fixed or constantly varied across sentences. In the field testing the participants reported the listening context (e.g., noisiness level) of several semicontrolled real-world conversations. Their reports were compared to (1) the context described by normal-hearing observers and (2) the background noise level measured using a sound level meter. In Experiment 2, participants repeatedly reported the degree of speech understanding, hearing aid use, and listening context using paper-and-pencil journals in their natural environments for 1 week. They also carried noise dosimeters to measure the sound level. The associations between (1) speech understanding, hearing aid use, and listening context, (2) dosimeter sound level and self-reported noisiness level, and (3) dosimeter data and lifestyle quantified using the journals were examined.
For Experiment 1, the reported and measured speech recognition scores were highly correlated across all test conditions (r = 0.94 to 0.97). The field testing results revealed that most listening context properties reported by the participants were highly consistent with those described by the observers (74-95% consistency), except for noisiness rating (58%). Nevertheless, higher noisiness rating was associated with higher background noise level. For Experiment 2, the EMA results revealed several associations: better speech understanding was associated with the use of hearing aids, front-located speech, and lower dosimeter sound level; higher noisiness rating was associated with higher dosimeter sound level; listeners with more diverse lifestyles tended to have higher dosimeter sound levels.
Adults with hearing impairment were able to report their listening experiences, such as speech understanding, and characterize listening context in controlled environments with reasonable accuracy. The pattern of the data aggregated across multiple EMA surveys conducted in a wide range of uncontrolled real-world environment was consistent with the established knowledge in audiology. The two experiments suggested that, regarding speech understanding and related listening contexts, EMA reflects what it is intended to measure, supporting its construct validity in audiology research.
生态瞬时评估(EMA)是一种通过重复评估/调查来收集数据的方法,这些数据描述了受访者在自然环境中的当前或最近经历以及相关背景。EMA在听力学研究中的应用正在增加。
本研究从测量言语理解和相关聆听环境方面检验了EMA的结构效度(即一种测量方法反映其 intended to measure)。实验1调查了个体在受控环境中能够在多大程度上准确报告其言语识别表现并描述聆听环境。实验2调查了在不受控的现实世界环境中进行的多次EMA调查汇总的数据是否会揭示出与言语理解、助听器使用、聆听环境和生活方式之间已确立的关系相一致的有效模式。
这是一项观察性研究。
分别有12名和27名听力障碍成年人参与了实验1和实验2。
在实验1的实验室测试中,参与者在句子的信噪比固定或不断变化的环境中估计他们的言语识别表现。在现场测试中,参与者报告了几次半受控现实世界对话的聆听环境(例如嘈杂程度)。他们的报告与(1)听力正常的观察者描述的环境以及(2)使用声级计测量的背景噪声水平进行了比较。在实验2中,参与者在自然环境中使用纸笔日志连续1周重复报告言语理解程度、助听器使用情况和聆听环境。他们还携带噪声剂量计来测量声级。研究了(1)言语理解、助听器使用和聆听环境之间,(2)剂量计声级与自我报告的嘈杂程度之间,以及(3)剂量计数据与使用日志量化的生活方式之间的关联。
对于实验1,在所有测试条件下,报告的和测量的言语识别分数高度相关(r = 0.94至0.97)。现场测试结果表明,参与者报告的大多数聆听环境属性与观察者描述的属性高度一致(一致性为74 - 95%),除了嘈杂程度评级(58%)。然而,较高的嘈杂程度评级与较高的背景噪声水平相关。对于实验2,EMA结果揭示了几个关联:更好的言语理解与使用助听器、前方位置的言语以及较低的剂量计声级相关;较高的嘈杂程度评级与较高的剂量计声级相关;生活方式更多样化的听众往往具有较高的剂量计声级。
听力障碍成年人能够在受控环境中以合理的准确性报告他们的聆听体验,例如言语理解,并描述聆听环境。在广泛的不受控现实世界环境中进行的多次EMA调查汇总的数据模式与听力学中的既定知识一致。这两个实验表明,就言语理解和相关聆听环境而言,EMA反映了其 intended to measure,支持了其在听力学研究中的结构效度。