Home
Scholarly Works
Validation of the Hearing Utility Measure (HUM) in...
Journal article

Validation of the Hearing Utility Measure (HUM) in Cochlear Implant Candidates and Users

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To validate the Hearing Utility Measure (HUM), a tool designed to quantify hearing loss impact on health and quality of life for use in economic evaluation. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort. SETTING: Tertiary academic center. METHODS: Cochlear implant (CI) candidates were enrolled between June 25, 2020, and March 17, 2024. Participants completed HUM alongside other assessments, including Health Utilities Index, Mark-3 (HUI-3), Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ-49), Cochlear Implant Quality of Life Profile (CIQOL-35), and Tinnitus Handicap Inventory (THI) at the time of CI evaluation and 12 months post-activation. A subgroup with stable hearing status completed HUM twice, 6 months apart, to assess test-retest reliability. RESULTS: Among 1315 participants, HUM showed strong correlations with CIQOL-global (r = 0.69; 95% CI: 0.66-0.72) and SSQ-overall (r = 0.70; 95% CI: 0.67-0.73), supporting construct validity. HUM Tinnitus domain correlated negatively with THI (-0.75; -0.77, -0.73), as expected. Test-retest reliability was excellent (Intraclass Correlation Coefficient [ICC] 0.90, 95% CI: 0.83-0.94). HUM hearing utility was higher for candidates with single-sided deafness (SSD) (0.76) than with traditional and asymmetric hearing loss (0.58, P < .001). Median HUM improved from 0.70 to 0.78 for SSD recipients (P = .002) and 0.57 to 0.75 for traditional recipients (P < .001). CONCLUSION: HUM is a reliable, valid, and responsive measure of hearing-related health in adults with advanced hearing loss. Unlike traditional instruments such as SSQ and CIQOL, which capture patient-reported outcomes but are not designed for economic analysis, HUM is a preference-based utility instrument that enables cost-effectiveness evaluation. It outperforms the available HUI-3 by better reflecting hearing loss impact and complements existing nonutility instruments used in clinical and health policy decision-making.

Authors

Dixon PR; Shah AH; McRackan TR; Feeny D; Cushing SL; Tomlinson G; Chen JM

Journal

Otolaryngology, Vol. 173, No. 6, pp. 1470–1477

Publisher

Wiley

Publication Date

December 1, 2025

DOI

10.1002/ohn.70033

ISSN

0194-5998

Contact the Experts team