The authors have no funding, financial relationships, or conflicts of interest to disclose.
Differences in perception of hearing handicap between cochlear implant users and their spouses
Article first published online: 22 OCT 2013
© 2013 The American Laryngological, Rhinological and Otological Society, Inc.
Volume 124, Issue 5, pages 1199–1203, May 2014
How to Cite
Mistry, D., Ryan, J., Maessen, H. and Bance, M. (2014), Differences in perception of hearing handicap between cochlear implant users and their spouses. The Laryngoscope, 124: 1199–1203. doi: 10.1002/lary.24404
- Issue published online: 18 APR 2014
- Article first published online: 22 OCT 2013
- Accepted manuscript online: 30 SEP 2013 09:22AM EST
- Manuscript Accepted: 26 AUG 2013
- Manuscript Revised: 19 JUL 2013
- Manuscript Received: 13 FEB 2013
- Quality of life;
- cochlear implant;
- proxy rating
To examine the relationship between patient and proxy ratings of health-related quality of life (HRQL) in patients with cochlear implants.
Eighty-two adult cochlear implant recipients and their spouses/partners were asked to complete the Nijmegen Cochlear Implant Questionnaire (NCIQ) and the Hearing Participation Scale (HPS) that were mailed to them.
For the NCIQ, there were 38 useable responses from recipients and 31 useable responses from the partners. There were 27 paired and useable questionnaires (i.e., from both the recipient and his/her partner). For the HPS, there were 42 useable responses from recipients and 36 useable responses from the partners. Of these, there were 35 paired questionnaires. There was good agreement between partners and patients with both the HPS (r = 0.62) and the NCIQ (r = 0.80). There was a significant statistical difference in the scoring of the Basic Sound Perception subscale between the two groups (P = .039), with spouses under-rating performance in this subscale.
For patients with cochlear implants, patients' partners corroborate patients' self-reported HRQL. In cases in which patients have sensory impairment, there may be an additional role for proxy ratings of HRQL to give a more complete assessment of functional limitations.
Level of Evidence
4. Laryngoscope, 124:1199–1203, 2014