Neal Katie, McMahon Catherine M, Hughes Sarah E, Boisvert Isabelle
Department of Lingustics, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Hearing, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Front Psychol. 2022 Mar 10;13:786347. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.786347. eCollection 2022.
Hearing loss in adults has a pervasive impact on health and well-being. Its effects on everyday listening and communication can directly influence participation across multiple spheres of life. These impacts, however, remain poorly assessed within clinical settings. Whilst various tests and questionnaires that measure listening and communication abilities are available, there is a lack of consensus about which measures assess the factors that are most relevant to optimising auditory rehabilitation. This study aimed to map current measures used in published studies to evaluate listening skills needed for oral communication in adults with hearing loss.
A scoping review was conducted using systematic searches in Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science and Google Scholar to retrieve peer-reviewed articles that used one or more linguistic-based measure necessary to oral communication in adults with hearing loss. The range of measures identified and their frequency where charted in relation to auditory hierarchies, linguistic domains, health status domains, and associated neuropsychological and cognitive domains.
9121 articles were identified and 2579 articles that reported on 6714 discrete measures were included for further analysis. The predominant linguistic-based measure reported was word or sentence identification in quiet (65.9%). In contrast, discourse-based measures were used in 2.7% of the articles included. Of the included studies, 36.6% used a self-reported instrument purporting to measures of listening for communication. Consistent with previous studies, a large number of self-reported measures were identified ( = 139), but 60.4% of these measures were used in only one study and 80.7% were cited five times or fewer.
Current measures used in published studies to assess listening abilities relevant to oral communication target a narrow set of domains. Concepts of communicative interaction have limited representation in current measurement. The lack of measurement consensus and heterogeneity amongst the assessments limit comparisons across studies. Furthermore, extracted measures rarely consider the broader linguistic, cognitive and interactive elements of communication. Consequently, existing measures may have limited clinical application if assessing the listening-related skills required for communication in daily life, as experienced by adults with hearing loss.
成人听力损失对健康和幸福有着广泛影响。其对日常听力和交流的影响会直接影响到生活多个领域的参与度。然而，在临床环境中，这些影响仍未得到充分评估。虽然有各种用于测量听力和交流能力的测试及问卷，但对于哪些测量方法能评估与优化听觉康复最相关的因素，尚无共识。本研究旨在梳理已发表研究中用于评估听力损失成人口语交流所需听力技能的现有测量方法。
进行了一项范围综述，通过在Medline、EMBASE、科学网和谷歌学术上系统检索，以获取经同行评审的文章，这些文章使用了一项或多项与听力损失成人口语交流所需的基于语言的测量方法。所确定的测量方法范围及其出现频率，根据听觉层次、语言领域、健康状况领域以及相关的神经心理学和认知领域进行了梳理。
共识别出9121篇文章，其中2579篇报告了6714种不同测量方法的文章被纳入进一步分析。报告的主要基于语言的测量方法是安静环境下的单词或句子识别（65.9%）。相比之下，仅2.7%的纳入文章使用了基于语篇的测量方法。在纳入的研究中，36.6%使用了一种自称用于测量交流听力的自我报告工具。与先前研究一致，识别出了大量自我报告测量方法（n = 139），但其中60.4%的测量方法仅在一项研究中使用，80.7%被引用次数不超过五次。
已发表研究中用于评估与口语交流相关听力能力的现有测量方法针对的领域较窄。交际互动概念在当前测量中的体现有限。评估之间缺乏测量共识和异质性限制了跨研究的比较。此外，提取的测量方法很少考虑交流中更广泛的语言、认知和互动要素。因此，如果要评估听力损失成人在日常生活中交流所需的与听力相关技能，现有测量方法的临床应用可能有限。
