Social Support Predicts Hearing Aid Satisfaction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The goals of the current research were to determine: (1) whether there is a relationship between perceived social support and hearing aid satisfaction, and (2) how well perceived social support predicts hearing aid satisfaction relative to other correlates previously identified in the literature. DESIGN: In study 1, 173 adult ((Equation is included in full-text article.)age = 68.9 years; SD = 13.4) users of hearing aids completed a survey assessing attitudes toward health, hearing, and hearing aids, as well as a questionnaire assessing Big-Five personality factors (Openness to Experience, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism) either using paper and pencil or the Internet. In a follow-up study designed to replicate and extend the results from study 1, 161 adult ((Equation is included in full-text article.)age = 32.8 years; SD = 13.3) users of hearing aids completed a similar survey on the Internet. In study 2, participants also completed a measure of hearing aid benefit and reported the style of their hearing aid. RESULTS: In studies 1 and 2, perceived social support was significantly correlated with hearing aid satisfaction (respectively, r = 0.34, r = 0.51, ps < 0.001). The results of a regression analysis revealed that in study 1, 22% of the variance in hearing aid satisfaction scores was predicted by perceived social support, satisfaction with one's hearing health care provider, duration of daily hearing aid use, and openness. In study 2, 43% of the variance in hearing aid satisfaction was predicted by perceived social support, hearing aid benefit, neuroticism, and hearing aid style. Overall, perceived social support was the best predictor of hearing aid satisfaction in both studies. After controlling for response style (i.e., acquiescence or the tendency to respond positively), the correlation between perceived social support and hearing aid satisfaction remained the same in study 1 (r = 0.34, p < 0.001) and was lower in study 2 (r = 0.39, p < 0.001), although the change in correlation was not significant. CONCLUSIONS: The results from study 1 provide evidence to suggest that perceived social support is a significant predictor of satisfaction with hearing aids, a finding that was replicated in a different sample of participants investigated in study 2. A significant relationship between perceived social support and hearing aid satisfaction was observed in both studies, even though the composition of the two samples differed in terms of age, relationship status, income, proportion of individuals with unilateral versus bilateral hearing impairment, and lifetime experience with hearing aids. The results from both studies 1 and 2 provide no support for the claim that participant response style accounts for the relationship between hearing aid satisfaction and perceived social support.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".