MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Social Support Predicts Hearing Aid Satisfaction

2015· article· en· W601592001 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEar and Hearing · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of TorontoToronto Rehabilitation Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHearing aidNeuroticismConscientiousnessPsychologySocial supportOpenness to experienceExtraversion and introversionAgreeablenessAudiologyHearing lossBig Five personality traitsClinical psychologyPersonalityMedicineSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.529
Threshold uncertainty score0.287

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.100
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.228 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it