Beyond the Moment: How EMA Reporting Periods Affect Sampled Situations and Sensitivity to Hearing Aid Differences.
Petra von Gablenz, Inga Holube, Nadja Schinkel-Bielefeld
PMID 41793133WHAT IT FOUND
Asking hearing aid users to recall the worst listening experience from the past 30 minutes revealed clear preferences for advanced features.
Strictly momentary surveys showed no difference between basic and advanced programs. Retrospective sampling captures challenging situations that momentary prompts miss.
Key findings
01Momentary assessments showed no significant differences between basic and advanced hearing aid programs.
02Retrospective assessments of the worst experience in the previous 30 minutes showed significantly better ratings for the advanced program in global rating, sound quality, and listening effort.
03Only 21% of surveys reported a change in listening situation or perception within the preceding 30 minutes, meaning most data remained momentary.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for SLPs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
Small sample size (22 participants). Short duration (14 days). No adaptation period before the study, which may have influenced ratings. Participants found the task of distinguishing between current and past assessments challenging. Funding by a hearing aid manufacturer (WS Audiology) may introduce bias, though the study compares internal features.
Declared interests
Data collection was funded by WS Audiology. The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not assume that hearing aid users can easily distinguish between current and recent past listening experiences. The study found that many participants struggled with this distinction, and some may have reported 'no change' to avoid the extra survey burden, potentially skewing the data toward momentary assessments.
Summarised by AI from the full paper, without a clinician reviewing it. Check it against the source before it changes what you do. Read it on PubMed →