Self-report outcome in new hearing-aid users - Department of ...

Table 2. IOI-HA factor loadings.
Session 1 Session 2 Session 3
IOI-HA F1 1 F2 1 F1 2 F2 2 F1 3 F2 3
Item 1 0.59 0.65 /0.74
Item 2 0.68 0.69 0.82
Item 3 0.79 0.82 0.71
Item 4 0.76 0.85 0.87
Item 5 /0.79 /0.63 0.62
Item 6 0.84 0.88 0.61
Item 7 0.94 0.89 0.86
Explained variance 2.94 1.91 2.91 1.86 3.15 1.42
Proportion total 0.42 0.27 0.42 0.27 0.45 0.20
There is no clear picture with regard to the distinctness of
the underlying factor structures. A weak tendency is that items
13 loaded on the same factor, as did items 1011 and items
1618. Yet, for the first session the meaning behind the factors
is ambiguous. By contrast, for session 3 the five factors have
high face validity; the session-3 factors could reasonably be
labelled speech and music (items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 12, 15); noise
(items 6, 7, 9, 15), soft sounds (items 8, 12, 16, 17, 18); driving
car (items 13, 14); and own voice (items 10, 11). While the
subscales for soft sounds and own voice exist in sessions 1
and 2, respectively, there is no general agreement between
session-1, session-2 and session-3 factors. For session 1, the
sound of own voice loads on the same factor as noisy
situations, but other factors have virtually no face validity
for sessions 1 and 2.
SADL
For SADL, the results from the factor analyses are shown in
Table 4. Three factors were identified and bore resemblance to
three of the four subscales previously reported for SADL (Cox &
Alexander, 2001). Because items 14 and 15 were not used, the
subscale service and cost (items 12, 14, 15) is represented by only
one item in the present study, and therefore it will not be
discussed further. Furthermore, since all the subjects had ‘skislope’
hearing losses, unaided conversation on the telephone was
often possible, and therefore item 11 was often technically
unanswered (if respondents could hear well on the telephone
without hearing aids, they could tick a box and did then not need
to answer the question about how helpful the hearing aids are on
the telephone). Because of insufficient data, item 11 had to be
left out of the analysis.
Table 3. HAPQ factor loadings.
Session 1 Session 2 Session 3
HAPQ F1 1 F2 1 F3 1 F1 2 F2 2 F3 2 F1 3 F2 3 F3 3 F4 3 F5 3
Item 1 0.77 0.89 0.89
Item 2 0.70 0.80 0.75
Item 3 0.80 0.55 0.74
Item 4 0.75 0.71 0.70
Item 5 0.62 0.55 0.79
Item 6 0.80 0.64 0.81
Item 7 0.87 0.69 0.83
Item 8 0.71 0.57 0.66
Item 9 0.82 0.75 0.83
Item 10 0.78 0.90 0.72
Item 11 0.79 0.87 0.82
Item 12 0.87 0.79 0.61 0.64
Item 13 0.72 0.70 0.91
Item 14 0.58 0.73 0.90
Item 15 0.59 0.75 0.58
Item 16 0.58 0.72 0.81
Item 17 0.74 0.63 0.74
Item 18 0.80 0.63 0.78
Explained variance 3.35 5.10 4.33 4.79 3.90 5.25 4.46 2.90 3.60 2.19 1.84
Proportion total 0.19 0.28 0.24 0.27 0.22 0.29 0.25 0.16 0.20 0.12 0.10
Self-report outcome in new hearing-aid
users: Longitudinal trends and relationships
between subjective measures of benefit and
satisfaction
Vestergaard 387