liu.seSearch for publications in DiVA
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • oxford
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Comparing response options for the International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids (IOI-HA) and for Alternative Interventions (IOI-AI) daily-use items
University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia and Eriksholm Research Centre, Oticon A/S, Snekkersten, Denmark.
University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
2012 (English)In: International Journal of Audiology, ISSN 1499-2027, E-ISSN 1708-8186, Vol. 51, no 10, 788-791 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

OBJECTIVE:

This study investigated how clients quantify use of hearing rehabilitation. Comparisons focused on the daily-use item of the International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids (IOI-HA), and for Alternative Interventions (IOI-AI).

DESIGN:

Adults with hearing impairment completed the original versions of the IOI-HA and the IOI-AI daily-use item which has five numerical response options (e.g. 1-4 hours/day) and a modified version with five word response options (e.g. 'Sometimes'). Respondents completed both IOI versions immediately after intervention completion and three months later.

STUDY SAMPLE:

In total, 64 people who had obtained hearing aids completed both IOI-HA versions and 27 people who had participated in communication programs completed both IOI-AI versions.

RESULTS:

Participants reported higher scores on the modified (word) daily-use item than on the original (number) daily-use item. Participants who completed the IOI-AI did so significantly more than participants who completed the IOI-HA. This was true both after intervention completion and three months later.

CONCLUSION:

This study showed that comparisons between IOI-HA and IOI-AI daily-use item scores should be made with caution. Word daily-use response options are recommended for the IOI-AI (i.e. Never; Rarely; Sometimes; Often; and Almost always).

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Informa Healthcare, 2012. Vol. 51, no 10, 788-791 p.
Keyword [en]
Hearing aids; psycho-social/emotional; aging; demographics/epidemiology
National Category
Other Health Sciences
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-104551DOI: 10.3109/14992027.2012.695875PubMedID: 22757983OAI: oai:DiVA.org:liu-104551DiVA: diva2:697425
Available from: 2014-02-18 Created: 2014-02-18 Last updated: 2017-12-06Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed

Authority records BETA

Laplante-Lévesque, Ariane

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Laplante-Lévesque, Ariane
In the same journal
International Journal of Audiology
Other Health Sciences

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 82 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • oxford
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf