We have located links that may give you full text access.
Journal Article
Review
Improving Hearing Aid Self-Efficacy and Utility Through Revising a Hearing Aid User Guide: A Pilot Study.
American Journal of Audiology 2018 March 9
Purpose: This pilot study aimed to investigate whether revising a hearing aid user guide (HAUG) is associated with improved hearing aid self-efficacy and utility performance.
Method: In Part 1, an HAUG was evaluated using the Suitability Assessment of Material (SAM) and readability formulas (Flesch Reading Ease [Flesch, 1943], Flesch-Kincaid Readability Formula [Kincaid, Fishburne, Rogers, & Chissom, 1957], and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook [McLaughlin, 1969]). The HAUG was revised using results from the SAM and best practice guidelines. The revision included generating a video. In Part 2, 30 adults with hearing impairment were randomly assigned to use either the original guide (N = 15) or the revised guide and video (N = 15) to perform a utility task. Participants' self-efficacy was measured using the Basic and Advanced Handling subscales of the Measure of Audiologic Rehabilitation Self-Efficacy for Hearing Aids questionnaire. SAM and readability were compared between the original and revised guides (Doak, Doak, & Root, 1996).
Results: SAM and readability were improved following the revision. Participants in the revised guide group performed significantly better on the utility task and on the Measure of Audiologic Rehabilitation Self-Efficacy for Hearing Aids subscales than participants in the original guide group.
Conclusions: These results are encouraging as they indicate that there is scope to influence self-efficacy and utility performance through the use of appropriate HAUGs.
Method: In Part 1, an HAUG was evaluated using the Suitability Assessment of Material (SAM) and readability formulas (Flesch Reading Ease [Flesch, 1943], Flesch-Kincaid Readability Formula [Kincaid, Fishburne, Rogers, & Chissom, 1957], and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook [McLaughlin, 1969]). The HAUG was revised using results from the SAM and best practice guidelines. The revision included generating a video. In Part 2, 30 adults with hearing impairment were randomly assigned to use either the original guide (N = 15) or the revised guide and video (N = 15) to perform a utility task. Participants' self-efficacy was measured using the Basic and Advanced Handling subscales of the Measure of Audiologic Rehabilitation Self-Efficacy for Hearing Aids questionnaire. SAM and readability were compared between the original and revised guides (Doak, Doak, & Root, 1996).
Results: SAM and readability were improved following the revision. Participants in the revised guide group performed significantly better on the utility task and on the Measure of Audiologic Rehabilitation Self-Efficacy for Hearing Aids subscales than participants in the original guide group.
Conclusions: These results are encouraging as they indicate that there is scope to influence self-efficacy and utility performance through the use of appropriate HAUGs.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app