Current replication
Spearman rank correlation
Not measuredNo current measurement is available in this registry.
Research study · 2025
Hearing Aids Use Preferences Among Older Adults with Hearing Loss: A Discrete Choice Experiment
Explore the published experiment and its available replication evidence.
Read the paper ↗01 / Human finding
What the study found
A reviewed summary is not available in this registry. Consult the published paper for the original finding.
Answer-key review: Not reviewed
02 / Experiment design
Who chose, and what varied
- Country
- Selected communities in Tangshan, Baoding, Langfang, Zhangjiakou, and Cangzhou in Hebei Province and Xicheng District in Beijing Municipality, China
- Human respondents
- Not recorded
- Attributes
- 6
- Task
- discrete choice
03 / Synthetic replication
Registry replication results
Paper-era reference
2023 CLM mean Spearman ρ
Not measuredHistorical results use their original estimator and reference. They are not a matched comparison with the current run.
Detailed replication evidence · 2026-11-03
Right direction on 5 of 6 significant effects, partial ranking (ρ = 0.61); sizes not comparable (the paper reports logit coefficients).
Use it to screen which attributes move choice; sizes need the paper's respondent data, and confirm the reversed effect with people.
- direction
- mixed
- rank
- mixed
- size
- not comparable
Supported uses
- Nothing yet without human confirmation.
Limits to keep in view
- Ranking close levels against each other; the order diverges from humans.
- Decisions that hinge on the attributes whose direction flipped (listed below).
- Effect sizes in the paper's units; only direction, rank and shape are compared.
Effects on a common scale
Human effects: logit coefficient. Synthetic effects are multiplied by the record’s calibration factor, k = 8.3452. Calibration aligns magnitude; it does not establish agreement in unadjusted effect sizes.
| Attribute / level | Human | Human 95% half-width | Calibrated synthetic |
|---|---|---|---|
| Accessibility: Audiologist-fitted hearing aids (reference) | 0.000 | Not measured | 0.000 |
| Accessibility: Over-the-count hearing aids | 0.890 | Not measured | -1.129 |
| Effectiveness in noisy settings: Not very effective (reference) | 0.000 | Not measured | 0.000 |
| Effectiveness in noisy settings: Effective | 1.920 | Not measured | 1.868 |
| Effectiveness in noisy settings: Very effective | 3.010 | Not measured | 2.137 |
| Style: Behind-the-ear (BTE) (reference) | 0.000 | Not measured | 0.000 |
| Style: Receiver-in-canal (RIC) | 0.400 | Not measured | 0.056 |
| Style: In-the-canal (ITC) | -0.360 | Not measured | -1.321 |
| Battery type: Non-rechargeable batteries (reference) | 0.000 | Not measured | 0.000 |
| Battery type: Rechargeable batteries | 0.380 | Not measured | 0.433 |
| Connectivity: Without a dedicated mobile app (reference) | 0.000 | Not measured | 0.000 |
| Connectivity: With a dedicated mobile app | 0.100 | Not measured | -0.117 |
Subgroups · screen, not a result
Split by sex: no significant difference between the groups, so there is nothing to compare
screen, not a result. Each row is the female group’s effect minus the male group’s, human in logit, simulated on the simulation’s own scale, so compare direction, not size. A Jev fast-small screen makes no comparison claim.
- Sign agreement
- –
- 95% interval
- no interval
- Shuffle null
- –
- Shape ρ
- –
- Scale ratio
- –
| Group | Simulated n | People n | ρ vs paper |
|---|---|---|---|
| female | 88 | not given | – |
| male | 87 | not given | – |
| Attribute / level | People Δ (95%) | Significant | Simulated Δ (own scale) | Direction |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Accessibility: Over-the-count hearing aids | +0.21 ±0.45 | no | +0.07 ±0.08 | not compared |
| Effectiveness in noisy settings: Very effective | -0.01 ±0.56 | no | +0.05 ±0.09 | not compared |
| Style: Receiver-in-canal (RIC) | -0.10 ±0.65 | no | -0.02 ±0.10 | not compared |
| Style: In-the-canal (ITC) | +0.03 ±0.55 | no | -0.01 ±0.08 | not compared |
04 / Evidence and limitations
Follow the evidence
Missing results mean unmeasured, not zero agreement.
- missing parent paper url
- missing canonical pdf
- missing historic score
- missing resolved wandb run