Abstract
Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA) is a timely method for capturing differences between hearing aids (HAs) or HA features in real-world environments. Studies vary greatly in reporting periods, specifically how long ago an event can have occurred to still be reported and how events are selected when not summarizing over a period of time. The potential effects of different reporting periods on HA or HA feature contrast remain unexplored. In a 14-day EMA study, 22 hearing-aid users assessed both a basic and an advanced HA program, which were switched daily without participant control. Several times
daily, participants used a smartphone app to report on satisfaction with the HA program, overall listening experience, sound quality, and listening effort. The app had participants focus on the current situation, denoting a momentary reporting period, and the worst listening experience within the previous 30 min, denoting a short-term retrospective period. Participants also completed an end-of-day questionnaire. Sound-pressure levels and HA classifier data were recorded continuously. Mixed modeling was used to examine the impact of reporting periods on ratings. Main findings showed no rating differences between the two HA programs in momentary or end-of-day assessments. However, differences emerged in short-term retrospective reporting, thus in the assessments of the worst experience within the preceding 30 min. Various time effects were also observed. Depending on the reporting period, the analysis of sound-pressure levels and HA classifier data revealed variations in real-world snapshots. In conclusion, this study underscores the need to diligently define reporting periods in hearing-related EMA research.