Beyond the Moment: How EMA Reporting Periods Affect Sampled Situations and Sensitivity to Hearing Aid Differences

Area of Science:

• Audiology and Hearing Science
• Human-Computer Interaction
• Psychological Research Methods

Background:

• Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA) is valuable for real-world hearing aid (HA) research.
• Existing studies lack standardized reporting periods, impacting the reliability of HA feature comparisons.
• The influence of varying reporting periods on HA performance evaluation is not well understood.

Purpose of the Study:

• To investigate the impact of different reporting periods within EMA on evaluating hearing aid (HA) programs.
• To compare user ratings of HA programs using momentary, short-term retrospective, and end-of-day reporting.

Main Methods:

• A 14-day EMA study involving 22 hearing aid users comparing basic and advanced HA programs.
• Participants used a smartphone app for momentary and 30-minute retrospective reporting on satisfaction, listening experience, sound quality, and effort.
• Continuous recording of sound-pressure levels and HA classifier data, analyzed using mixed modeling.

Main Results:

• No significant rating differences were found between HA programs for momentary or end-of-day assessments.
• Differences in HA program ratings emerged specifically in short-term retrospective reports (worst experience in the prior 30 minutes).
• Analysis of environmental data (sound-pressure levels, HA classifier) showed variations depending on the reporting period.

Conclusions:

• The choice of reporting period significantly influences findings in hearing-related EMA studies.
• Delineating reporting periods is crucial for accurate and reliable evaluation of hearing aid features and performance.
• Future research must explicitly define and justify reporting periods to ensure robust conclusions.