Summary
The response counts behind the CCAA's 2024 survey report: one bar chart per question, with the question wording, for 1,519 self-selected US respondents with hearing loss.
Key findings
- Q20-Q22 (pp. 24-26) support calculated substantive-response bases of 961, 880 and 719 after excluding their respective non-applicable categories. Always plus usually gives 354/961 = 36.8%, 342/880 = 38.9% and 496/719 = 69.0%, rounded to 37%, 39% and 69%. These aggregates overlap the individual frequency categories.
- Q23A (p. 27) describes Wi-Fi audio sent to a personal smartphone or loaner receiver, heard through a headset, neckloop or Bluetooth-capable hearing aid or earbuds. It asks whether respondents have experienced such a system, without a recall interval or session count.
- Q18A (p. 22) asks about avoiding events without assistive communication accommodations where following proceedings would be difficult even with hearing aids or an implant. The question covers communication accommodations generally, rather than assistive listening alone.
- Q7 (p. 8; 1,487 answers, multiple selections) records 740 selections for telecoils/T-switch, 262 for a remote microphone or other device with a telecoil, and 53 for no hearing aid or implant. The two telecoil categories cannot be added to establish a count of unique people.
- Q8 (p. 10; 1,483 answers) asks whether telecoils would be essential when buying the next hearing device: yes 734, no 272, unsure 342, unfamiliar with telecoils 135. Among yes/no answers, 734/1,006 is 73.0% (calculated). Q9 (p. 12; 1,484 answers) asks the equivalent generic Bluetooth question: yes 1,273, no 54, unsure 122, unfamiliar 35; 1,273/1,327 yes/no answers is 95.9% (calculated). Neither asks about venue procurement.
- Q10 (p. 14; 1,469 answers) asks residents of AZ, DE, FL, IN, NM, NY, UT and WA about professional telecoil counselling before fitting: yes 167, no 188, cannot remember 62, live elsewhere 1,052. Q11 (p. 15; 1,474 answers) asks residents of other states: yes 327, no 490, not applicable 657. These self-reports do not establish the effect of a counselling law.
- Q12 (p. 16; 1,328 answers, multiple selections) records telecoil use with venue loops 536, counter loops 118, and FM/infrared receivers with neckloops 150. A further 223 selected having telecoils but not using them; 519 selected not applicable. The non-use option covers telecoils generally, including personal and telephone use.
- Q13 (p. 17; 1,335 answers, multiple selections) records learning about telecoils from hearing professionals 557, support groups 465 and the internet 267; 232 knew nothing about telecoils before the survey.
- Q15 (p. 19; 1,348 answers) asks how often people seek or request hearing assistance at public gatherings: always 351, usually 280, half the time 102, seldom 230, never 385. The prompt includes captions as well as listening systems.
- Q17 (p. 21; 1,303 answers, multiple selections) asks which accommodations people most commonly find: FM/headsets 275, FM including neckloops 197, infrared/headsets 71, infrared including neckloops 58, hearing loops 226, other audio systems 101, CART 245, handheld captions 374, and unsure of some systems 475. These counts describe selections by respondents, not shares of installations or venue visits.
- Q18A (p. 22; 1,353 answers) asks about avoiding events with no assistive communication accommodation: yes 612, sometimes 365, no 315, not applicable 61. Q19A (p. 23; 1,179 answers) asks about problems with assistive listening: seldom 288, sometimes 307, half the time 122, fairly often 277, very often 185. Its examples include batteries, staff, neckloops, malfunction and signage; it gives no separate prevalence for each problem.
- Q27 (p. 31) offers receiver/headset arrangements as part of the listening-system alternatives. Its counts sum to 1,335: 804 named a system and 312 chose one of the five listening systems. The calculated loop shares are 187/312 = 59.9% of listening-system choices and 187/804 = 23.3% of all system choices; captions are 492/804 = 61.2%. This is a hypothetical listener recommendation.
- The companion survey page (https://www.ccaa.name/SurveyText.html, Questionnaire section) dates the online questionnaire to 5-24 September 2023 and attributes recording of the 1,519 responses to the Frost Center at Hope College. This provides fieldwork dates separately from the charts' PDF creation date.
- Asked which single system they would recommend for their city council chamber (1,335 answers), 492 chose CART or captions, 187 a hearing loop, 61 Wi-Fi audio, 40 FM/RF, 13 a wired system and 11 infrared; 531 said they did not feel well enough informed to recommend one. This is the only question that asks respondents to choose between the assistive listening technologies.
- Where a system requires borrowing a receiver and headset (1,327 answers), 189 always borrow one, 165 usually, 35 half the time, 189 sometimes and 383 never; 366 answered not applicable.
- Where a system requires borrowing a receiver and neckloop for use with telecoils (1,312 answers), 205 always borrow one, 137 usually, 25 half the time, 163 sometimes and 350 never; 432 do not have telecoils.
- Asked how often telecoil users listen through their telecoils in a looped venue (1,309 answers), 367 said always, 129 usually, 23 half the time, 97 sometimes and 103 never; 424 have no telecoils and 166 never go anywhere with a hearing loop.
- Asked how often hearing assistance is readily available (1,290 answers), 20 said always, 178 usually, 289 half the time, 576 seldom and 227 never.
- 217 of 1,321 respondents had used an audio-over-Wi-Fi system. Of the 251 who rated its delay, 119 were not conscious of it, 88 found it distracting and 44 objectionable.
- Q23A (p. 27) has 1,321 answers: 217 yes and 1,104 no to Wi-Fi experience. Q24 (p. 28) has 1,269 answers: 119 not conscious of delay, 88 distracting, 44 objectionable and 1,018 not applicable. Its 251 substantive ratings exceed the 217 experience answers, and the charts do not explain the mismatch.
Limits
Charts of counts only, with no title page, date, method or commentary; any percentage has to be worked out from the counts. The sample is the self-selected, mostly senior, mostly severe-to-profound one described in the report, recruited through hearing-loss websites, newsletters and groups. The report's figure of 69% of telecoil users who "always use" a loop matches always plus usually in these counts (496 of 719), with 367 (51%) always. The report's statement that over 60% preferred hearing loops among five technologies appears to rest on the council-chamber question, where 187 of the 312 respondents who picked one of the five assistive listening options chose the loop. Auracast was not offered as an option. No date is printed: the year comes from the PDF's creation date (20 November 2023), and the survey page that links the charts says the questionnaire was online from 5 to 24 September 2023.
Read the original
Cited in
- Auracast, hearing loop, infrared, RF or Wi-Fi: which suits which room?Disputed
- How many receivers and neckloops does each code require, and how should a loan pool be run?Partly answered
- How many listeners carry a telecoil, an Auracast-capable device or a smartphone?Disputed
- What do listeners prefer, and how often do they use venue systems?Partly answered
- How much delay does Wi-Fi streaming add, and when does it matter?Not reliable yet
- What does Wi-Fi streaming need from the venue's network and from listeners' phones?Partly answered
- Where does infrared assistive listening work, and where does it fall short?Partly answered
- What works in courtrooms, council chambers and other meeting rooms where speech must be heard by all and kept in the room?Partly answered
- What does a listener have to do to use each system, and where do people get stuck?Partly answered
- How many people in an audience are likely to need assistive listening?Partly answered
Cite this source
Committee for Communication Access in America. CCAA Survey on Assistive Communication Technology: Graphs. Committee for Communication Access in America (ccaa.name). 2023. https://www.ccaa.name/CCAA_Graphs.pdf (accessed 13 October 2026).
Every finding here cites its source, and who funded each source is labelled. This site does not recommend products. Found an error or a missing study? Suggest a correction.