Objectives: To raise awareness and propose a good practice guide for translating and adapting any hearing-related questionnaire to be used for comparisons across populations divided by language or culture, and to encourage investigators to publish detailed steps. Design: From a synthesis of existing guidelines, we propose important considerations for getting started, followed by six early steps: (1) Preparation, (2, 3) Translation steps, (4) Committee Review, (5) Field testing and (6) Reviewing and finalising the translation. Study sample: Not applicable. Results: Across these six steps, 22 different items are specified for creating a questionnaire that promotes equivalence to the original by accounting for any cultural differences. Published examples illustrate how these steps have been implemented and reported, with shared experiences from the authors, members of the International Collegium of Rehabilitative Audiology and TINnitus research NETwork. Conclusions: A checklist of the preferred reporting items is included to help researchers and clinicians make informed choices about conducting or omitting any items. We also recommend using the checklist to document these decisions in any resulting report or publication. Following this step-by-step guide would promote quality assurance in multinational trials and outcome evaluations but, to confirm functional equivalence, large-scale evaluation of psychometric properties should follow.

Hearing aid satisfaction is a pleasurable emotional experience as an outcome of an evaluation of performance. Many tools have been designed to measure the degree of satisfaction overall, or along the dimensions of cost, appearance, acoustic benefit, comfort, and service. Various studies have used these tools to examine the relationships between satisfaction and other factors. Findings are not always consistent across studies, but in general, hearing aid satisfaction has been found to be related to experience, expectation, personality and attitude, usage, type of hearing aids, sound quality, listening situations, and problems in hearing aid use. Inconsistent findings across studies and difficulties in evaluating the underlying relationships are probably caused by problems with the tools (eg, lack of validity) and the methods used to evaluate relationships (eg, correlation analyses evaluate association and not causal effect). Whether satisfaction changes over time and how service satisfaction contributes to device satisfaction are unclear. It is hoped that this review will help readers understand current satisfaction measures, how various factors affect satisfaction, and how the way satisfaction is measured may be improved to yield more reliable and valid data.

Objective: Development of the Mandarin Chinese matrix (CMNmatrix) sentence test for speech intelligibility measurements in noise according to the international standard procedure. Design: A 50-word base matrix representing the distribution of phonemes and lexical tones of spoken Mandarin was established. Hundred sentences capturing all the co-articulations of two consecutive words were recorded. Word-specific speech recognition functions, speech reception thresholds (SRT: signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), that provides 50% speech intelligibility) and slopes were obtained from measurements at fixed SNRs. The speech material was homogenised in intelligibility by applying level corrections up to ± 2 dB. Subsequently, the CMNmatrix test was evaluated, the comparability of test lists was measured at two fixed SNRs. To investigate the training effect and establish the reference data, speech recognition was measured adaptively. Study sample: Overall, the study sample contained 80 normal-hearing native Mandarin-speaking listeners. Results: Multi-centre evaluation measurements confirmed that test lists are equivalent in intelligibility, with a mean SRT of −10.1 ± 0.1 dB SNR and a slope of 13.1 ± 0.9 %/dB. The reference SRT is −9.3 ± 0.8 and −11.2 ± 1.2 dB SNR for the open- and closed-set response format, respectively. Conclusion: The CMNmatrix test is suitable for accurate and internationally comparable speech recognition measurements in noise.

A Speech Intelligibility Index (SII) for the sentences in the Cantonese version of the Hearing In Noise Test (CHINT) was derived using conventional procedures described previously in studies such as Studebaker and Sherbecoe [J. Speech Hear. Res. 34, 427–438 (1991)]. Two studies were conducted to determine the signal-to-noise ratios and high- and low-pass filtering conditions that should be used and to measure speech intelligibility in these conditions. Normal hearing subjects listened to the sentences presented in speech-spectrum shaped noise. Compared to other English speech assessment materials such as the English Hearing In Noise Test [Nilsson et al., J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 95, 1085–1099 (1994)], the frequency importance function of the CHINT suggests that low-frequency information is more important for Cantonese speech understanding. The difference in frequency importance weight in Chinese, compared to English, was attributed to the redundancy of test material, tonal nature of the Cantonese language, or a combination of these factors.

Background. Previous research has found that hearing loss is associated with poorer cognitive function. The question is that when a hearing impairment is being compensated for by appropriately fitted monaural hearing aids, special precautions are still needed when screening cognitive function in older adults. Objective. This research examined cognitive function in elderly hearing aid users who used monaural hearing aids and whether the presence of a hearing impairment should be accounted for when screening cognitive function in these individuals. Methods. Auditory thresholds, sentence reception thresholds, and self-reported outcomes with hearing aids were measured in 34 older hearing aid users to ensure hearing aids were appropriately fitted. Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) results obtained in these participants were then compared to normative data obtained in a general older population exhibiting similar demographic characteristics. Stepwise multiple regression analyses were used to examine the effects of demographic and auditory variables on MMSE scores. Conclusions. Results showed that, even with appropriately fitted hearing aids, cognitive decline was significant. Besides the factors commonly measured in the literature, we believed that auditory deprivation was not being fully compensated for by hearing aids. Most importantly, screening of cognitive function should take into account the effects of hearing impairment, even when hearing devices have been appropriately fitted.