Skip to main content

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Front. Audiol. Otol.
Sec. Technology and Innovation in Auditory Implants and Hearing Aids
Volume 2 - 2024 | doi: 10.3389/fauot.2024.1506306

Psychometric Characteristics and Feasibility of Micro-interactionbased Ecological Momentary Assessment in Audiology Research

Provisionally accepted
  • 1 The University of Iowa, Iowa City, United States
  • 2 Facebook Reality Labs Research (United States), Redmond, Washington, United States

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

    Objectives: Microinteraction-based Ecological Momentary Assessment (micro-EMA) is a smartwatch-based tool that delivers single-question surveys, enabling respondents to quickly report their real-time experiences. The objectives of the two studies presented here were to evaluate micro-EMA's psychometric characteristics and feasibility across three response formats (2-point, 5-point, and 10-point scales) for adults with hearing loss.In the first study, thirty-two participants completed a dual-task experiment aimed at assessing the construct validity, responsiveness, intrusiveness, and test-retest reliability of micro-EMA across the three response formats. Participants listened to sentences at five signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) ranging from -3 dB to 9 dB relative to the SNR for 50% speech understanding, answered the question "Hearing well?" on smartwatches, and repeated the sentences. In the second study, twenty-one participants wore smartwatches over 6 days. Every 15 minutes, participants were prompted to answer the question "Hearing well?" using one of the three response formats for two days. Participants provided feedback on their experience with micro-EMA.Results: In the dual-task experiment, participants reported improved hearing performance in micro-EMA as SNRs and speech recognition scores increased across all three response formats, supporting the tool's construct validity. Statistical models indicated that the 5-point and 10-point scales yielded larger relative changes between SNRs, suggesting higher responsiveness, compared to the 2-point scale. Participants completed surveys significantly faster with the 2-point scale, indicating lower intrusiveness, compared to the 5-point and 10-point scales. Correlation analysis revealed that over two visits one week apart, the 2-point scale had the poorest test-retest reliability, while the 5-point scale had the highest. In the field trial, participants completed 79.6% of the prompted surveys, with each participant averaging 42.9 surveys per day. Although participants experienced interruptions due to frequent prompts, annoyance and distraction levels were low. Most participants preferred the 5point scale.The dual-task experiment suggested that micro-EMA using the 5-point scale demonstrated superior psychometric characteristics compared to the 2-point and 10-point scales at the tested SNRs. The field trial further supported its feasibility for evaluating hearing performance in adults with hearing loss. Additional research is needed to explore the potential applications of micro-EMA in audiology research.

    Keywords: Hearing Loss, Presbyacousis, Hearing Aids, Ecological momentary assessment (EMA), Patient Outcome Assessment

    Received: 04 Oct 2024; Accepted: 18 Dec 2024.

    Copyright: © 2024 Wu, Stangl, Smith, Oleson, Miller and Chipara. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

    * Correspondence: Yu-Hsiang Wu, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, United States

    Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.