What Can We Learn about Auditory Processing from Adult Hearing Questionnaires?

Abstract

Background: Questionnaires addressing auditory disability may identify and quantify specific symptoms in adult patients with listening difficulties. Purpose: (1) To assess validity of the Speech, Spatial, and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ), the (Modified) Amsterdam Inventory for Auditory Disability (mAIAD), and the Hyperacusis Questionnaire (HYP) in adult patients experiencing listening difficulties in the presence of a normal audiogram. (2) To examine which individual questionnaire items give the worse scores in clinical participants with an auditory processing disorder (APD). Research Design: A prospective correlational analysis study. Study Sample: Clinical participants (N = 58) referred for assessment because of listening difficulties in the presence of normal audiometric thresholds to audiology/ear, nose, and throat or audiovestibular medicine clinics. Normal control participants (N = 30). Data Collection and Analysis: The mAIAD, HYP, and the SSQ were administered to a clinical population of nonneurological adults who were referred for auditory processing (AP) assessment because of hearing complaints, in the presence of normal audiogram and cochlear function, and to a sample of age-matched normal-hearing controls, before the AP testing. Clinical participants with abnormal results in at least one ear and in at least two tests of AP (and at least one of these tests to be nonspeech) were classified as clinical APD (N = 39), and the remaining (16 of whom had a single test abnormality) as clinical non-APD (N = 19). Results: The SSQ correlated strongly with the mAIAD and the HYP, and correlation was similar within the clinical group and the normal controls. All questionnaire total scores and subscores (except sound distinction of mAIAD) were significantly worse in the clinical APD versus the normal group, while questionnaire total scores and most subscores indicated greater listening difficulties for the clinical non-APD versus the normal subgroups. Overall, the clinical non-APD group tended to give better scores than the APD in all questionnaires administered. Correlation was strong for the worse-ear gaps-in-noise threshold with the SSQ, mAIAD, and HYP; strong to moderate for the speech in babble and left-ear dichotic digit test scores (at p < 0.01); and weak to moderate for the remaining AP tests except the frequency pattern test that did not correlate. The worse-scored items in all three questionnaires concerned speech-in-noise questions. This is similar to worse-scored items by hearing-impaired participants as reported in the literature. Worse-scored items of the clinical group also included quality aspects of listening questions from the SSQ, which most likely pertain to cognitive aspects of listening, such as ability to ignore other sounds and listening effort. Conclusions: Hearing questionnaires may help assess symptoms of adults with APD. The listening difficulties and needs of adults with APD to some extent overlap with those of hearing-impaired listeners, but there are significant differences. The correlation of the gaps-in-noise and duration pattern (but not frequency pattern) tests with the questionnaire scores indicates that temporal processing deficits may play an important role in clinical presentation.