
_______
Committee on Meaningful Outcome Measures in Adult Hearing Health Care
Board on Health Care Services
Health and Medicine Division
Consensus Study Report
NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001
This activity was supported by contracts between the National Academy of Sciences and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Defense Health Agency (contract no. HT942524P0098), the Department of Veterans Affairs, the National Institute on Aging and the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders under a contract with the National Institutes of Health (contract no. HHSN263201800029I and task order no. 75N98023F00011), and NAS Endowment.
International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-99237-4
International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-99237-0
Digital Object Identifier: https://doi.org/10.17226/29104
Library of Congress Control Number: 2025938400
This publication is available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Keck 360, Washington, DC 20001; (800) 624-6242; http://www.nap.edu.
Copyright 2025 by the National Academy of Sciences. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine and National Academies Press and the graphical logos for each are all trademarks of the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America.
Suggested citation: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Measuring meaningful outcomes for adult hearing health interventions. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/29104.
The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, nongovernmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. Tsu-Jae Liu is president.
The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president.
The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine.
Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.nationalacademies.org.
Consensus Study Reports published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine document the evidence-based consensus on the study’s statement of task by an authoring committee of experts. Reports typically include findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on information gathered by the committee and the committee’s deliberations. Each report has been subjected to a rigorous and independent peer-review process and it represents the position of the National Academies on the statement of task.
Proceedings published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine chronicle the presentations and discussions at a workshop, symposium, or other event convened by the National Academies. The statements and opinions contained in proceedings are those of the participants and are not endorsed by other participants, the planning committee, or the National Academies.
Rapid Expert Consultations published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine are authored by subject-matter experts on narrowly focused topics that can be supported by a body of evidence. The discussions contained in rapid expert consultations are considered those of the authors and do not contain policy recommendations. Rapid expert consultations are reviewed by the institution before release.
For information about other products and activities of the National Academies, please visit www.nationalacademies.org/about/whatwedo.
THEODORE G. GANIATS (Chair), University of California, San Diego
KENDALL M. CAMPBELL, University of Texas Medical Branch
TAMALA DAVID, State University of New York at Brockport
LARRY E. HUMES, Indiana University Bloomington
ALAN M. JETTE, Boston University
COLLEEN G. LE PRELL, University of Texas at Dallas
UCHECHUKWU MEGWALU, Stanford University
CATHERINE V. PALMER, University of Pittsburgh and University of Pittsburgh Medical Center
CARLA PERISSINOTTO, University of California, San Francisco
THOMAS A. POWERS, Powers Consulting, LLC
NICHOLAS REED, NYU Grossman School of Medicine
SHERRI SMITH, Duke University School of Medicine
FAN-GANG ZENG, University of California, Irvine
CAMERON GETTEL, Yale School of Medicine
PAULE JOSEPH, National Institutes of Health
TRACY A. LUSTIG, Senior Program Officer/Study Director
ELLA MORSE, Research Associate
ABIAN HAILU, Senior Program Assistant
TAYLOR KING, Associate Program Officer (from November 2024)
CRYSTAL J. BELL, Program Officer (from July 2024 through December 2024)
JULIE WILTSHIRE, Senior Finance Business Partner
SHARYL J. NASS, Senior Board Director, Board on Health Care Services
ROBERT POOL, Science Writer, Digital Pens, LLC
This page intentionally left blank.
This Consensus Study Report was reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in making each published report as sound as possible and to ensure that it meets the institutional standards for quality, objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process.
We thank the following individuals for their review of this report:
RICHARD ALBA, City University of New York
KATHERINE BOUTON, Hearing Loss Association of America
CHRIS GREAME, Health Care Executive
RONALD HAYS, University of California, Los Angeles
ROBERT KAPLAN, Stanford University
RYAN MCCREERY, Boys Town National Research Hospital
TODD RICKETTS, Vanderbilt University Medical Center
HINRICH STAECKER, University of Kansas Medical Center
ANDREW VERMIGLIO, East Carolina University
BLAKE WILSON, Duke University
SARAH WINGFIELD, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center
YU-HSIANG WU, The University of Iowa
Although the reviewers listed above provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations of this report nor did they see the final draft before its release. The review of this report was overseen by DAVID B. REUBEN, University of California, Los Angeles, and DAN G. BLAZER, II, Duke University. They were responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with the standards of the National Academies and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content rests entirely with the authoring committee and the National Academies.
The study committee and the Health and Medicine Division project staff take this opportunity to recognize and thank the many individuals who shared their time and expertise to support the committee’s work and to inform deliberations. The committee appreciates the sponsors of this study for their generous financial support: the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Defense Health Agency, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the National Institute on Aging, the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders, and NAS Endowment. The contents provided do not necessarily represent the official views of the sponsors.
Over the course of its meetings, the committee heard from many people who shared their stories about their hearing difficulties, particularly regarding what outcomes are most meaningful to them. The committee thanks the participants from its public sessions: Katherine Bouton, Chris Greame, Suzanne Johnston, Eric Matson, Russell Misheloff, Elizabeth Pentin, Kerry Sullivan, and Wynne Whyman. The committee is also grateful for the many submissions to this committee by adults with hearing difficulties as well as their clinicians and care partners.
Additionally, the committee benefited greatly from discussions with representatives of the project’s sponsors, hearing health care clinicians, and representatives from professional groups who participated during the committee’s open sessions:
Yulia Carroll, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Lee Cottrell, Balance and Hearing Institute at Farragut ENT & Allergy
Patricia Gaffney, American Academy of Audiologists
Kelly King, National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders, National Institutes of Health
Rachel McArdle, Veterans Health Administration
Erica Person, Flex Audiology
Sierra Sharpe, International Hearing Society
Donna Smiley, American Speech-Language-Hearing Association
Alicia Spoor, Academy of Doctors of Audiology
Tim Steele, Associated Audiologists, Inc.
The committee is grateful to Erin Giovannetti and Bryan Luce for their early contributions to this project. Deep appreciation goes to the many staff within the National Academies who provided support at various times throughout this project, especially to Violet Bishop, Lori Brenig, Sam Gerard, Megan Lowry, Amber McLaughlin, Rebecca Morgan, Leslie Sim, and Taryn Young. The committee and project staff are grateful to Robert Pool for his drafting and editorial assistance to prepare this report.
3 GENERAL PRINCIPLES FOR CORE OUTCOME SETS AND OUTCOME MEASUREMENT
Overview of Outcomes and Outcome Measures
Assessment of Outcome Measures
Core Outcome Sets and Measurement for Hearing Health Interventions
4 MEANINGFULNESS AND IMPORTANCE TO MEASURE
Peer-Reviewed Literature on Meaningfulness
Other Sources of Evidence on Meaningfulness
5 OUTCOMES FOR HEARING HEALTH INTERVENTIONS
Proximal Outcomes of Hearing Health Interventions
Hearing and Communication Outcomes
Outcomes Beyond Hearing and Communication
6 MEASUREMENT OF THE CORE OUTCOME SET
The History of Assessing Hearing Health Outcomes
Committee Process and Criteria
Understanding Speech in Complex Listening Situations
Hearing-Related Psychosocial Health
This page intentionally left blank.
4-2 Effects of Hearing Loss in the Workplace
4-3 Listening Effort and Listening Fatigue
4-4 Clinician Perspectives on Patient Goals
4-5 What Matters to Adults with Hearing Difficulties
4-6 What Clinicians Hear from Their Patients About What Is Most Meaningful
7-1 Approaches to Dissemination and Implementation of New Information in Hearing Health
S-1 Overview of the committee’s process
S-2 Proximal and distal outcomes of hearing health interventions
1-1 Overview of the committee’s process
2-1 Prevalence and severity of hearing loss by age
2-2 Prevalence of self-reported trouble hearing among U.S. adults aged 20 and older
2-3 Basic types of hearing loss
3-1 COSMIN guideline for selection of outcome measures for core outcome sets
3-2 ICF model of functioning and disability
4-1 Population-weighted estimates of hearing difficulties ages 20–69 using 2017–2020 NHANES data
4-3 Hearing loss-related health concerns
5-1 Proximal and distal outcomes of hearing health interventions
5-3 Acoustic challenge and listening effort
7-1 The COMB-B system: A framework for understanding behavior
S-1 Outcomes in Hearing, Communication, and Beyond Considered for Core Set
S-2 Areas of Needed Research by Outcome
3-1 COMiT’ID Core Outcome Sets by Intervention Type
5-1 Outcomes in Hearing and Communication Considered for the Core Set
5-2 Outcomes Beyond Hearing and Communication Considered for the Core Set
5-3 Areas of Needed Research by Outcome
6-1 Definitions of Scientific Acceptability
7-1 Barriers and Facilitators to the Use of a COS Identified by Researchers or Clinical Trialists
C-1 Committee Criteria and Rating System for Outcome Measure Evaluation
D-1 Comparison of the Psychometric Evidence for WIN vs QuickSIN
| AAA | American Academy of Audiology |
| ABR | auditory brainstem response |
| ACT | Audible Contrast Threshold |
| ADA | Academy of Doctors of Audiology |
| APHAB | Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit |
| APHAP | Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Performance |
| ASHA | American Speech-Language Hearing Association |
| AURONET | Auditory Rehabilitation Outcomes Network |
| BKB-SIN | Bamford-Kowal-Bench Speech in Noise |
| CESD-5 | Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale 5 |
| COM-B | capability, opportunity, motivation-behavior |
| COMET | Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials |
| COMiT’ID | Core Outcome Measures in Tinnitus International Delphi |
| COS | core outcome set |
| COSI | Client-Oriented Scale of Improvement |
| COSMIN | COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments |
| COS-STAD | Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Development |
| CPHI | Communication Profile for the Hearing Impaired |
| CQMC | Core Quality Measures Collaborative |
| dB | decibel |
| dB HL | decibels hearing level |
| dB SPL | decibels sound pressure level |
| DIN | Digits-in-Noise |
| DSL v.5 | Desired Sensation Level Version 5 |
| EHIMA | European Hearing Instrument Manufacturers Association |
| EHR | electronic health record |
| ENT | ear, nose, and throat |
| EQ-5D | European Quality of Life 5-Dimension |
| ET-F | 2022 EuroTrak in France |
| ET-G | 2022 EuroTrak in Germany |
| FDA | U.S. Food and Drug Administration |
| FUEL | Framework for Understanding Effortful Listening |
| gEAR | gene Expression Analysis Resource |
| GHABP | Glasglow Hearing-Aid Benefit Profile |
| HALex | Health and Activities Limitation Index |
| HEAL | Helping to End Addiction Long-term |
| HHI | Hearing Handicap Inventory |
| HHIA | Hearing Handicap Inventory for Adults |
| HHIE | Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly |
| HHIE-S | Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly—Screening |
| HINT | Hearing in Noise Test |
| HLAA | Hearing Loss Association of America |
| HUI2 | Health Utilities Index 2 |
| HUI3 | Health Utilities Index 3 |
| ICF | International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health |
| IHS | International Hearing Society |
| ILD | interaural level difference |
| IOI | International Outcome Inventory |
| IOI-HA | International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids |
| IRT | item response theory |
| ITD | interaural timing difference |
| MCID | minimal clinically important difference |
| MDC | minimal detectable change |
| MT2022 | MarkeTrak |
| NAL-NL2 | National Acoustic Laboratories Non-Linear 2 |
| NHANES | National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey |
| NHS | National Health Service |
| NIDCD | National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders |
| NIH | National Institutes of Health |
| NIHL | noise-induced hearing loss |
| NORA | National Occupational Research Agenda |
| NQF | National Quality Forum |
| OMERACT | Outcome Measures in Rheumatology |
| OMER-ED | Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Education |
| OTOF | otoferlin |
| PHAB | Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit |
| PHAP | Profile of Hearing Aid Performance |
| PHQ-9 | patient health questionnaire |
| POD-Vis | Probing Outcomes Data with Visual Analytics |
| PQM | Partnership for Quality Measurement |
| PROM | patient-reported outcome measure |
| PROMIS | Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System |
| PROMIS-29 | Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System 29 |
| QoL | quality of life |
| QuickSIN | Quick Speech-in-Noise |
| QWB-SA | Quality of Well-Being scale—self-administered |
| RE-AIM | reach, adoption, implementation, and maintenance |
| RHHI | Revised Hearing Handicap Inventory |
| RHHI-S | Revised Hearing Handicap Inventory—Screening |
| SEM | standard error of measurement |
| SF-6D | Short-Form 6-Dimension |
| SNR | signal-to-noise ratio |
| SPIRIT | Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials |
| SRM | standardized response mean |
| SRT | speech recognition threshold |
| SSQ | Speech, Spatial, and Qualities of Hearing Scale |
| TINNET | TINnitus research NETwork |
| VA | Department of Veterans Affairs |
| WHO | World Health Organization |
| WHODAS II | World Health Organization’s Disability Assessment Scale II |
| WIN | Words-in-Noise |