173 / 264
than for listening to the television or radio, and these ratings
were higher than listening in reverberation.
Mean SSQ scores for each subscale and each device are
displayed in Figure 5. Error bars show 95% confidence
intervals. As SSQ data for each scale in each device
condition were normally distributed, data were analyzed
using a repeated measures ANOVA. A significant main
effect of subscale was found (F(2,14) = 15.6,
p
= 0.0003,
G
2
= 0.352), but there were no significant main effects
or interactions related to device. Scores for the Spatial
subscale for the BAHD were significantly lower than for
the Qualities subscale for both the BAHD (t(7) = 5.61,
p
= 0.01) and the CROS (t(7) = 5.23,
p
= 0.02).
Device Usage
Data obtained from the BAHD and CROS diaries were
used to analyze device usage. Depending on the time
that elapsed between visits, some participants wore their
hearing device a few days more or less than the 2-week
trial period, but the average wearing time for each device
was very similar. Paired
t
tests confirmed that there were
no differences in the number of days that each device
was worn or the number of hours that each device was
worn per day. The BAHD was worn for an average of
13.9 days (SD = 2.1) and an average of 10 hours and
6 minutes each day (SD = 2 hr and 38 min). The CROS
was worn for an average of 12.9 days (SD = 2.0) and an
average of 10 hours and 0 minutes each day (SD = 3 hr
and 15 min). One participant reported wearing both the
BAHD and the CROS over the same four days.
Participants were also asked to tally the situations
in which they used the BAHD or CROS daily. Figure 6
shows the mean number of times that participants re-
ported using each device in each of various conditions.
Error bars show 95% confidence intervals. A Friedman’s
ANOVA found no significant differences in reported usage
across conditions between the BAHD and CROS, but there
were significant differences between conditions: the de-
vices were worn significantly more often in the home
(one-on-one), in the car, and when walking than when
doing other activities outdoors.
Device Preference
When questioned about their preferred hearing device
overall, four out of eight participants preferred the CROS
to the BAHD, citing sound quality as the main reason for
their choice. Three participants preferred the BAHD to
the CROS, reporting that they did not like having to wear
two hearing aids and struggled with retention of the
CROS domes; however, two of them still preferred the
sound quality of the CROS. One participant expressed no
overall preference but preferred the BAHD for comfort
and the CROS for sound quality. These choices varied for
both BAHD models used in the experiment. For the four
Cochlear BP100 users, two preferred their device to the
CROS, one preferred the CROS, and one remained
undecided. For the four Oticon Medical Ponto Pro users,
one preferred their device to the CROS and three pre-
ferred the CROS.
DISCUSSION
Patients and care providers choose a rehabilitative
option for SSD based on many complex factors. Some of
these factors are aesthetics, comfort, bias and commit-
ment of the healthcare provider, true long-term cost to the
patient, restrictions that the technology places on the
patient or future medical imaging, medical condition, and
the ability to preview technology (e.g., with a headband).
Only some of the factors affecting choice are related to
the auditory experience, such as sound quality, processor
noise, bandwidth, and feedback. Although the question-
naires used here
V
the SSQ and BBSS
V
are particularly
designed to probe the functional limitations of SSD, it is
likely that global non-auditory factors will influence like
or dislike of a device and so affect scores even within
these instruments.
FIG. 5.
Mean ratings for each device on the three subscales
of the SSQ. Scores correspond to perceived hearing ability on a
10-point scale.
Error bars
denote 95% confidence intervals.
FIG. 6.
The mean number of times that each device was
reported to be used in the various settings.
Error bars
denote
95% confidence intervals.
CROS VS BAHD FOR SINGLE-SIDED DEAFNESS
Otology & Neurotology, Vol. 36, No. 5, 2015
152