Part II: Evaluation of professional functioning 89 Table 7. Results of the hierarchical multiple regression analysis of the factors associated with change in need for recovery and subjective listening effort. The determinants of block 1 were included as potential confounders in the other blocks Block Predictors R2 R2 changea p R2 change Change in need for recovery 1 Age Gender Educational level BHI .03 - - 2 Subjective listening effort .23 .20 <.01 3 Personal adjustments .53 .50 <.01 4 Communication strategies .04 .01 .55 5 Auditory work demands .03 .00 .75 6 SSQ speech .15 .12 .05 7 SSQ spatial .13 .10 .10 8 SSQ quality .38 .30 <.01 Change in subjective listening effort 1 Age Gender Educational level BHI .06 - - 2 Personal adjustments .15 .10 .05 3 Communication strategies .08 .02 .31 4 Auditory work demands .12 .06 .09 5 SSQ speech .26 .20 <.01 6 SSQ spatial .13 .07 .09 7 SSQ quality .15 .09 .05 BHI indicates Binaural Hearing Impairment; SSQ, Speech, Spatial, and Qualities of hearing scale. a R2 change in comparison to block 1 Discussion The aim of this study was two-fold, respectively to determine whether the model of Van der Hoek-Snieders et al. (2020) could be confirmed regarding the factors influencing theNFRandLE in employeeswithhearing loss and to identify the factors associated with a decrease in NFR and LE after three months of aural rehabilitation. Analysis of the baseline data confirmed the relationships in the model of factors influencing the NFR, since all correlation coefficients were consistent with the previous study. Our results therefore support the conceptual premise that higher LE can be an explanation of increased NFR after work (Kramer et al., 2006). However, in agreement with the model, our results suggest that this explanation is not conclusive, and that increased NFR can also partially be explained by the way employees cope with their hearing loss. The hypotheses regarding the outcome LE
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw