Social Connectedness and Perceived Listening Effort in Adult Cochlear Implant Users: A Grounded Theory to Establish Content Validity for a New Patient-Reported Outcome Measure

Hughes, Sarah; Hutchings, Hayley; Rapport, Frances; McMahon, Catherine M.; Boisvert, Isabelle

doi:10.1097/aud.0000000000000553

Cited by 95 publications

(132 citation statements)

References 91 publications

(112 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

125

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…It consists of 60 items separated into six domains (basic sound perception, advanced sound perception, speech production, self-esteem, activity, and social interactions). The included items and domains were developed by expert opinion, rather than from information provided by CI users, and therefore do not include certain domains that CI users value as important (Hughes, Hutchings, Rapport, McMahon, & Boisvert, 2018;McRackan et al, 2017). In addition, the NCIQ was validated and tested on 91 Dutch-speaking participants (including 46 controls) from a single clinical site in the Netherlands.…”

Section: Ciqol Item Bank Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cochlear Implant Quality of Life (CIQOL): Development of a Profile Instrument (CIQOL-35 Profile) and a Global Measure (CIQOL-10 Global)

McRackan

Hand

Velozo

et al. 2019

J Speech Lang Hear Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: Valid, reliable, and efficient patient-reported outcome measures are needed to quantify quality of life (QOL) outcomes after cochlear implantation to supplement information obtained from performance-based outcomes. We previously developed the Cochlear Implant Quality of Life (CIQOL) item bank to serve as the source of items for subsequent instruments. This study reports the development and psychometric properties for 2 of these new instruments, the CIQOL-35 Profile and the CIQOL-10 Global. Method: Cochlear implant (CI) users referred from the CIQOL Development Consortium (n = 371), consisting of 20 CI centers across the United States, provided responses to the 81-item CIQOL item bank, which are grouped into 6 QOL domains (communication, emotional, entertainment, environment, listening effort, and social). Responses to the 81 CIQOL items were analyzed using item response theory to determine individual item difficulty, discrimination, and model fit to select the set of items for the profile instrument and global measure that would optimize their measurement characteristics. Results: The 35-item CIQOL-35 Profile instrument assesses outcomes represented in the 6 domains of the CIQOL final item pool. The 10-item CIQOL-10 Global measure produces a single, overall QOL score. After ensuring the upper and lower ends of the item difficulty continuum were represented (item difficulty range: −2.48 to 2.47), the items with the highest discrimination ability for each domain were selected for the CIQOL-35 Profile instrument (discrimination range: 0.67-1.37). Items were selected for the CIQOL-10 Global measure in a similar manner. Conclusion: The CIQOL-35 Profile and CIQOL-10 Global instruments provide psychometrically sound and efficient measures that can be used to assess QOL in adult CI users in both clinical and research settings.

show abstract

Section: Ciqol Item Bank Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cochlear Implant Quality of Life (CIQOL): Development of a Profile Instrument (CIQOL-35 Profile) and a Global Measure (CIQOL-10 Global)

McRackan

Hand

Velozo

et al. 2019

J Speech Lang Hear Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Listening effort is increasingly recognized as an important aspect of hearing loss. Hearing difficulties and increased listening effort are reportedly connected with numerous medical, financial, and occupational challenges ( Kramer, Kapteyn, & Houtgast, 2006 ; Nachtegaal et al., 2009 ) as well as feeling of social connectedness ( Hughes, Hutchings, Rapport, McMahon, & Boisvert, 2018 ). Hétu, Riverin, Lalande, Getty, and St-Cyr (1988) reported interviews with individuals with hearing impairment who mentioned that fatigue related to their hearing difficulties and coping mechanisms was severe enough that they would be “… too tired for normal activities” after finishing work.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Best Practices and Advice for Using Pupillometry to Measure Listening Effort: An Introduction for Those Who Want to Get Started

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Within the field of hearing science, pupillometry is a widely used method for quantifying listening effort. Its use in research is growing exponentially, and many labs are (considering) applying pupillometry for the first time. Hence, there is a growing need for a methods paper on pupillometry covering topics spanning from experiment logistics and timing to data cleaning and what parameters to analyze. This article contains the basic information and considerations needed to plan, set up, and interpret a pupillometry experiment, as well as commentary about how to interpret the response. Included are practicalities like minimal system requirements for recording a pupil response and specifications for peripheral, equipment, experiment logistics and constraints, and different kinds of data processing. Additional details include participant inclusion and exclusion criteria and some methodological considerations that might not be necessary in other auditory experiments. We discuss what data should be recorded and how to monitor the data quality during recording in order to minimize artifacts. Data processing and analysis are considered as well. Finally, we share insights from the collective experience of the authors and discuss some of the challenges that still lie ahead.

show abstract

“…Listening effort in people with hearing loss (HL) is an important topic to understand because it is thought to be associated with significant decrements in quality of life, including mental fatigue and increased stress (Hétu et al 1988), unemployment (Järvelin et al 1997), early retirement (Danermark & Gellerstedt 2004), need for recovery time after work (Nachtegaal et al 2009), emotional strain (Alhanbali et al 2018), and withdrawal from social communication because of anxiety and embarrassment (Hughes et al 2018). Unfortunately, effort is hard to operationally define and measure, despite multiple commendable published summaries (c.f.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Listening effort is not the same as speech intelligibility score

Winn¹,

Teece²

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Speech perception and listening effort are complicated and interrelated concepts. One might assume that intelligibility performance (percent correct) is a proxy for listening effort, but there are some reasons to challenge whether that is actually true. Correct responses in speech perception tests could reflect effortful mental processing, and a completely wrong answer could evoke very little effort, especially if the misperception itself is linguistically well-formed and sensible. This paper presents evidence that listening effort is not a function of the proportion of words correct, but is rather driven by the types of errors, position of errors within a sentence, and the need to resolve ambiguity, reflecting how easily the listener can make sense of a perception. We offer a taxonomy of error types that is both intuitive and also consistent with data from two experiments measuring listening effort with careful controls to either elicit specific kinds of mistakes or to track specific mistakes retrospectively. Participants included individuals with normal hearing or with cochlear implants. In two experiments of sentence repetition, listening effort – indexed by changes in pupil size – was found to scale with the amount of perceptual restoration needed (phoneme versus whole word), and also scale with the sensibility of responses, but not with the number of intelligibility errors. Although mental corrective action and number of mistakes can scale together in many experiments, it is possible to dissociate them in order to advance toward a more explanatory (rather than correlational) account of listening effort.

show abstract

Social Connectedness and Perceived Listening Effort in Adult Cochlear Implant Users: A Grounded Theory to Establish Content Validity for a New Patient-Reported Outcome Measure

Cited by 95 publications

References 91 publications

Cochlear Implant Quality of Life (CIQOL): Development of a Profile Instrument (CIQOL-35 Profile) and a Global Measure (CIQOL-10 Global)

Cochlear Implant Quality of Life (CIQOL): Development of a Profile Instrument (CIQOL-35 Profile) and a Global Measure (CIQOL-10 Global)

Best Practices and Advice for Using Pupillometry to Measure Listening Effort: An Introduction for Those Who Want to Get Started

Listening effort is not the same as speech intelligibility score

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About