Development and application of a health-related quality-of-life instrument for adults with cochlear implants: The Nijmegen Cochlear Implant Questionnaire

ABSTRACT OBJECTIVE: The goal was to develop a quantifiable, self-assessment health-related quality of life (QoL) instrument for use in cochlear implant (CI) users. DESIGN: Three principal domains were distinguished: physical, psychological, and social. Forty-five postlingually deaf adult multichannel CI users and 46 deaf candidates on the waiting list for CIs (control group) participated in the study. RESULTS: Retrospective scores for the CI group corresponded very well with the scores for the control group. Current QoL scores were substantially higher for all 6 subdomains. Internal consistency and test-retest reliability coefficients proved to be satisfactory, and the ability to detect clinical changes with the Nijmegen Cochlear Implantation Questionnaire (NCIQ) proved to be good. CONCLUSIONS: The psychometric characteristics of the NCIQ proved to be reliable and probably valid and sensitive to clinical changes. The data obtained with the NCIQ reflected that the instrument was able to detect that a CI had significant effects on several health-related QoL aspects, including the social and psychological domains.

[1]  M. Mcgrath.  Cost Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. , 1998 .

[2]  G Woodworth,et al.  Timbral recognition and appraisal by adult cochlear implant users and normal-hearing adults. , 1998, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[3]  S D Stephens,et al.  The use of qualitative questionnaires in patients having and being considered for cochlear implants. , 1997, Clinical otolaryngology and allied sciences.

[4]  N K Aaronson,et al.  An empirical comparison of four generic health status measures. The Nottingham Health Profile, the Medical Outcomes Study 36-item Short-Form Health Survey, the COOP/WONCA charts, and the EuroQol instrument. , 1997, Medical care.

[5]  L Whitford,et al.  Factors affecting auditory performance of postlinguistically deaf adults using cochlear implants. , 1996, Audiology & neuro-otology.

[6]  J. Niparko,et al.  Cost Utility of the Multichannel Cochlear Implant in 258 Profoundly Deaf Individuals , 1996, The Laryngoscope.

[7]  S Gatehouse,et al.  Measuring Patient Benefit from Otorhinolaryngological Surgery and Therapy , 1996, The Annals of otology, rhinology, and laryngology.

[8]  J K Shallop,et al.  Cochlear implantation in the elderly. , 1995, The American journal of otology.

[9]  L. Mens,et al.  Performance of prelingually and postlingually deaf patients using single‐channel or multichanel cochlear implants , 1995, The Laryngoscope.

[10]  Tyler Rs,et al.  Change in the quality of life of adult cochlear implant patients. , 1995 .

[11]  J. Harris,et al.  An outcomes study of cochlear implants in deaf patients. Audiologic, economic, and quality-of-life changes. , 1995, Archives of otolaryngology--head & neck surgery.

[12]  J. Niparko,et al.  Cost effectiveness of the multichannel cochlear implant. , 1995, The American journal of otology.

[13]  R. Tyler,et al.  Change in the quality of life of adult cochlear implant patients. , 1995, The Annals of otology, rhinology & laryngology. Supplement.

[14]  R A Deyo,et al.  Reproducibility and responsiveness of health status measures. Statistics and strategies for evaluation. , 1991, Controlled clinical trials.

[15]  P. van den Broek,et al.  Selection of patients for a cochlear implant. , 1991, Acta oto-rhino-laryngologica Belgica.

[16]  R S Tyler,et al.  Advantages and disadvantages reported by some of the better cochlear-implant patients. , 1990, The American journal of otology.

[17]  H. Cooper,et al.  Extra-cochlear implants: the patient's viewpoint. , 1986, British journal of audiology.

[18]  Jay Magidson,et al.  Advances in factor analysis and structural equation models , 1980 .

[19]  L. Cronbach.  Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests , 1951 .