Alpha 2.0
Login Register
» Articles » PMID: 37646292

Listening Evaluation of Cochlear Implant Users: Comparison of Subjective and Objective Evaluation by Visual Analogue Scale

Overview
Journal J Laryngol Otol
Publisher Cambridge University Press
Specialty Otorhinolaryngology
Date 2023 Aug 30
PMID 37646292
Authors
T Yano
R Tomioka
K Shirai
N Nishiyama
K Tsukahara
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to use short-form visual analogue scale cochlear implantation questionnaires to evaluate subjective aspects at each out-patient visit. The correlation between subjective hearing tests using the short-form visual analogue scale and objective hearing outcomes was evaluated.

Method: This study was conducted in a single centre. Cochlear implant users ( = 199) evaluated their hearing on a scale of 0 to 100 for the right, left and both ears. The Japanese speech perception test (CI-2004) Japanese monosyllable speech perception test (67-S) and cochlear implantation threshold were used for the objective cochlear implantation evaluation.

Results: A significant correlation was found between the short-form visual analogue scale questionnaire and objective hearing outcome, for words ( = 0.64) and sentences ( = 0.62) in CI-2004 and 67-S ( = 0.56) tests. No significant correlation was found between the short-form visual analogue scale score and cochlear implantation threshold ( = -0.18).

Conclusion: Short-form visual analogue scale cochlear implantation questionnaires mean cochlear implant users spend less time answering subjective visual analogue scale questionnaires, and clinicians estimate a patient's cochlear implantation hearing and abnormality by chronological evaluation.

References
1.
Waltzman S, Cohen N, Roland Jr J . A comparison of the growth of open-set speech perception between the nucleus 22 and nucleus 24 cochlear implant systems. Am J Otol. 1999; 20(4):435-41. View
2.
Maillet C, Tyler R, Jordan H . Change in the quality of life of adult cochlear implant patients. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl. 1995; 165:31-48. View
3.
Shirai K, Kawano A, Nishiyama N, Hagiwara A, Kawaguchi S, Saito Y . [Subjective evaluation of cochlear implants through a questionnaire survey in 100 long term adult cochlear implant users]. Nihon Jibiinkoka Gakkai Kaiho. 2015; 117(11):1329-38. DOI: 10.3950/jibiinkoka.117.1329. View
4.
Tateya T, Funabiki K, Naito Y, Fujiki N, Morita T . [Factors influencing satisfaction of cochlear implant users--a questionnaire-based study]. Nihon Jibiinkoka Gakkai Kaiho. 2001; 103(12):1272-80. DOI: 10.3950/jibiinkoka.103.1272. View
5.
Knoors H, Meuleman J, Klatter-Folmer J . Parents' and teachers' evaluations of the communicative abilities of deaf children. Am Ann Deaf. 2004; 148(4):287-94. DOI: 10.1353/aad.2003.0027. View