1 / 24

Towards an Understanding of Client Outcome Measures

Towards an Understanding of Client Outcome Measures. Anne Greville, Greville Consulting, Auckland, New Zealand Susan Clutterbuck, Gippsland Audiology Services, Victoria. EARtrak survey tool. IOI-HA Satisfied with hearing aids Recommend hearing aids Recommend service

tobit
Download Presentation

Towards an Understanding of Client Outcome Measures

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Towards an Understanding of Client Outcome Measures Anne Greville, Greville Consulting, Auckland,New Zealand Susan Clutterbuck, Gippsland Audiology Services, Victoria

  2. EARtrak survey tool • IOI-HA • Satisfied with hearing aids • Recommend hearing aids • Recommend service • % listening situations satisfied • % hearing aid features satisfied • % service features satisfied

  3. Client variables

  4. Hearing aid variables

  5. IOI-HA – satisfaction sub-test • Average daily hearing aid use • Degree of help • Worth the effort • Enjoyment of life

  6. IOI-HA – residual difficulties sub-test • Residual difficulty • Activity interference • Others affected

  7. Average daily hearing aid use& other IOI-HA items

  8. Average daily hearing aid use& general satisfaction

  9. Satisfaction items –internal relationships

  10. Satisfaction items - external relationships

  11. Residual difficulty items - internal relationships

  12. Residual difficulty items -external relationships

  13. Practice differences IOI-HA totals

  14. Practice differences satisfaction

  15. Practice differences summary scores

  16. IOI-HA & disability

  17. Satisfaction items & disability

  18. Satisfied with h/aids..1

  19. Satisfied with h/aids..2

  20. Recommend h/aids

  21. Recommend service

  22. Conclusions ..1 • IOI-HA 3 factors: • Use • Satisfaction – 3 items highly inter-correlated • Residual difficulties –1st item correlates best with other measures • “Others affected” correlates least with other measures • IOI-HA influenced by disability, as well as satisfaction with hearing aid fitting

  23. Conclusions ..2 • IOI-HA relatively insensitive to differences in clinical practice • Reducing test to 5 items improves sensitivity slightly • Daily hearing aid use item from IOI-HA of interest, but not same as satisfaction

  24. Conclusions ..3 • Kochkin’s measures relatively independent of perceived disability • Kochkin’s general satisfaction measures more sensitive & so more useful for comparison purposes than IOI-HA • General satisfaction most related to clarity of sound, reliability of aid/s & satisfaction in listening situations • Totals of scores for listening situations, aid features & service useful measures

More Related