Objective: This study examined the influence of prescription on hearing aid (HA) fitting characteristics and 5-year developmental outcomes of children. Design: A randomised controlled trial implemented as part of a population-based study on Longitudinal Outcomes of Children with Hearing Impairment (LOCHI). Study sample: Two-hundred and thirty-two children that were fit according to either the National Acoustic Laboratories (NAL) or Desired Sensation Level (DSL) prescription. Results: Deviation from targets and root-mean-square error in HA fitting revealed no significant difference between fitting prescriptions. Aided audibility quantified by using the Speech Intelligibility Index (SII) model showed that DSL provided higher audibility than NAL at low and medium input levels but not at high input level. After allowing for hearing loss desensitisation, differences in audibility between prescription groups were significant only at low input level. The randomised trial of prescription that was implemented for 163 children revealed no significant between-group differences in speech production, perception, and language; but parent-rated functional performance was higher for the DSL than for the NAL group. Conclusions: Proximity to prescriptive targets was similar between fitting prescriptions. The randomised trial revealed differences in aided audibility at low input level between prescription groups, but no significant differences in speech and language abilities.

Objective: To investigate the predicted threshold shift associated with the use of nonlinear hearing aids fitted to the NAL-NL2 or the DSL m[i/o] prescription for children with the same audiograms. For medium and high input levels, we asked: (1) How does predicted asymptotic threshold shifts (ATS) differ according to the choice of prescription? (2) How does predicted ATS vary with hearing level for gains prescribed by the two prescriptions? Design: A mathematical model consisting of the modified power law combined with equations for predicting temporary threshold shift (Macrae, 1994b) was used to predict ATS. Study sample: Predicted threshold shift were determined for 57 audiograms at medium and high input levels. Results: For the 57 audiograms, DSL m[i/o] gains for high input levels were associated with increased risk relative to NAL-NL2. The variation of ATS with hearing level suggests that NAL-NL2 gains became unsafe when hearing loss > 90 dB HL. The gains prescribed by DSL m[i/o] became unsafe when hearing loss > 80 dB HL at a medium input level, and > 70 dB HL at a high input level. Conclusion: There is a risk of damage to hearing for children using nonlinear amplification. Vigilant checking for threshold shift is recommended.

Objective: To examine the impact of prescription on predicted speech intelligibility and loudness for children. Design: A between-group comparison of speech intelligibility index (SII) and loudness, based on hearing aids fitted according to NAL-NL1, DSL v4.1, or DSL m[i/o] prescriptions. A within-group comparison of gains prescribed by DSL m[i/o] and NAL-NL2 for children in terms of SII and loudness. Study sample: Participants were 200 children, who were randomly assigned to first hearing-aid fitting with either NAL-NL1, DSL v4.1, or DSL m[i/o]. Audiometric data and hearing-aid data at 3 years of age were used. Results: On average, SII calculated on the basis of hearing-aid gains were higher for DSL than for NAL-NL1 at low input level, equivalent at medium input level, and higher for NAL-NL1 than DSL at high input level. Greater loudness was associated with DSL than with NAL-NL1, across a range of input levels. Comparing NAL-NL2 and DSL m[i/o] target gains revealed higher SII for the latter at low input level. SII was higher for NAL-NL2 than for DSL m[i/o] at medium- and high-input levels despite greater loudness for gains prescribed by DSL m[i/o] than by NAL-NL2. Conclusion: The choice of prescription has minimal effects on speech intelligibility predictions but marked effects on loudness predictions.