Validation of the LittlEARS® Auditory Questionnaire in children with normal hearing

Coninx, Frans; Weichbold, Viktor; Tsiakpini, L.; Autrique, E.; Bescond, Géraldine; Tamas, L.; Compernol, A.; Georgescu, Mădălina; Королева, И. В.; Maner-Idrissi, Gaïd Le; Liang, Wei; Madell, Jane R.; Mikić, Branka; Obrycka, Anita; Pankowska, Agnieszka; Pascu, Alexandru; Popescu, Roxana; Rădulescu, Luminița; Rauhamäki, T.; Rouev, Petar; Kabátová, Zuzana; Spitzer, J.; Thodi, Chryssoula; Varžic, F.; Vischer, M.v; Wang, L.; Zavala, Jorge S.; Brachmaier, Joanna

doi:10.1016/j.ijporl.2009.09.036

Cited by 111 publications

(114 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Regression analyses were conducted on each group separately to characterize the crosssectional trajectory of scores by age, per group. For children who were typically developing, a quadratic regression curve provided the best fit to the data (R 2 = 0.60; F = 8.20, df = 13, p <0 .01): this was the curve type used with the validation data from the normative study for this questionnaire (Coninx et al, 2009). The regression equation and the quadratic curve fit to the data can be found in Figure 7a.…”

Section: Littlears Data From Children With Hearing Loss Who Wear Hearmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…It is included in the UWO PedAMP for evaluation of younger children, as discussed below. According to the authors, the purpose of the LittlEARS Auditory Questionnaire is to assess the auditory behavior of infants with PCHI who wear hearing aids or cochlear implants (Coninx et al, 2009;Tsiakpini et al, 2004, Copyright MED-EL, 2004. The 35 items in the LittlEARS assess auditory development during the 1st 2 years of hearing in the real-world and tap into receptive and semantic auditory behavior as well as expressive-vocal behavior.…”

Section: Clinical Toolsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The University of Western Ontario Pediatric Audiological Monitoring Protocol (UWO PedAMP)

Bagatto

Moodie

Malandrino

et al. 2011

Trends in Amplification

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study proposed and evaluated a guideline for outcome evaluation for infants and children with hearing loss who wear hearing aids. The University of Western Ontario Pediatric Audiological Monitoring Protocol (UWO PedAMP) was developed following a critical review of pediatric outcome evaluation tools and was systematically examined by the Network of Pediatric Audiologists of Canada. It consists of tools to gather clinical process outcomes as well as functional caregiver reports. The UWO PedAMP was administered to a clinical population of infants and children with hearing aids. Sixty-eight children were administered the functional outcome evaluation tools (i.e., caregiver reports) a total of 133 times. Clinical process outcomes of hearing aid verification (e.g., real-ear-to-coupler difference) revealed typical aided audibility (e.g., Speech Intelligibility Index). Results for the LittlEARS ® questionnaire revealed that typically developing children with hearing loss who wear hearing aids are meeting auditory development milestones. Children with mild to moderate comorbidities displayed typical auditory development during the 1st year of life after which development began to decline. Children with complex factors related to hearing aid use had lower scores on the LittlEARS, but auditory development was in parallel to norms. Parents' Evaluation of Aural/Oral Performance (PEACH) results indicated no age effect on scoring for children above 2 years of age; however, the effect of degree of hearing loss was significant. This work provides clinicians with a systematic, evidence-based outcome evaluation protocol to implement as part of a complete pediatric hearing aid fitting.

show abstract

Section: Littlears Data From Children With Hearing Loss Who Wear Hearmentioning

confidence: 96%

Section: Clinical Toolsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The University of Western Ontario Pediatric Audiological Monitoring Protocol (UWO PedAMP)

Bagatto

Moodie

Malandrino

et al. 2011

Trends in Amplification

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The original validation study of the auditory questionnaire (15) was performed on a questionnaire format as proposed by the authors of instrument. In this study, parents who opted for this type reported no difficulty with the written questionnaire, which is an advantage when the goal is to reach large numbers of people, even if they are scattered over a very large geographical area.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A study (15) shows that there is a correlation between age and the total score, meaning the ability of the questionnaire to measure the age-dependent auditory behavior. The authors concluded that, in older children, higher scores are expected.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In a different study, the auditory questionnaire was internationally applied to a population of 3309 infants and children with normal hearing and results showed high validity and reliability values (15) . In that population, the Auditory Questionnaire LittlEars® was easily answered and the approximate time to complete it was less than ten minutes.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

LittlEars® – Questionário auditivo: adaptação semântica e cultural da versão em Português Brasileiro em pais de crianças com deficiência auditiva

Leandro

Costa

Mendes

et al. 2016

Audiol., Commun. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: Semantic and cultural adaptation of a preliminary Portuguese version of the questionnaire LittlEars® in families of children with hearing loss. Methods: Instrument administered as an interview or questionnaire, using a validated translation of LittlEars® Questionnaire in Portuguese with parents of children with hearing loss up to two years of hearing age. Parent's comments, questions, suggestions, examples, comments or difficulties were used for development of the adapted version. A brainstorming session with a group of experts was held to validate the final version. Results: Participants were 37 individuals who answered the questionnaire, parents of 32 children. Only four parents preferred to answer the questionnaire format, while 28 preferred to answer it as an interview. In the interview format, parents had difficulty understanding different items. Upon review and discussion of the comments of the families, a modified version was proposed. Conclusion: Changes in the questionnaire items were related to vocabulary, idiomatic expressions and unknown examples. The results of the questionnaire LittlEars® varied depending on hearing age and Speech Intelligibility Index -SII, suggesting that the adapted translation has sensitivity for measuring the hearing abilities. Other studies should apply the new version and final validation.Keywords: Hearing loss; Parents; Hearing aids; Hearing tests; Early intervention (education) RESUMOObjetivo: Adaptação semântica e cultural de versão preliminar em português do questionário LittlEars® em famílias de crianças com deficiência auditiva. Métodos: Instrumento administrado como entrevista ou questionário, em tradução validada do Questionário LittlEars® em português em pais de crianças com deficiência auditiva com até dois anos de idade auditiva. Comentários, dúvidas, sugestões, exemplos, críticas ou dificuldades dos pais foram utilizadas para elaboração da versão adaptada. Foi então realizada reunião para brainstorming com grupo de especialistas, para validação da versão final. Resultados: Trinta e sete sujeitos, pais ou responsáveis de 32 crianças, responderam ao questionário. Somente quatro pais preferiram responder no formato de questionário, enquanto 28, em entrevista. No formato entrevista, houve dificuldade de compreensão em diversos itens. Após análise e discussão dos comentários das famílias, foi proposta uma versão modificada. Conclusão: As modificações nos itens do questionário estiveram relacionadas a vocabulário, expressões idiomáticas e exemplos desconhecidos. Os resultados obtidos com o questionário LittlEars® no grupo estudado variaram conforme a idade auditiva e o Índice de Inteligibilidade de Fala (Speech Intelligibility Index -SII), o que sugere que a tradução adaptada tem sensibilidade para medir as habilidades auditivas. São necessários estudos com a versão proposta, em uma população maior, visando sua validação final.

show abstract

Most-Cited Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Within Otolaryngology—Revisiting the Minimal Clinically Important Difference

Peterson

Miller

Ioerger

et al. 2023

JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ImportancePatient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) allow clinicians and researchers to assess health-related information from a patient’s perspective. These measures have been used more frequently over the last several decades, but an associated minimal clinically important difference (MCID) is needed to optimize their utility. This narrative review identified the top 100 most-cited otolaryngology-related PROM development and validation publications and assessed the presence and characteristics of the PROMs’ associated MCID.ObservationsIn this narrative review, a literature search in Scopus and Web of Science was conducted on June 29, 2022, using keywords related to PROM development and validation studies in otolaryngology and reference lists. Studies that met the definition of a PROM and assessed an otolaryngologic disorder or study population were included for full-text review. After full-text review of 188 articles, the top 100 most-cited PROM development and validation publications, resulting in 106 total PROMs, were chosen for review. A total of 39 (37%) of the identified PROMs had an associated MCID. Of those reporting an MCID, 14 (35.9%) used an anchor-based method, 12 (30.8%) used a distribution-based method, 10 (25.6%) used both, and 3 (7.7%) did not specify or used neither method. Rhinology had the greatest number of PROMs with an associated MCID (16 of 24, 66%), and pediatrics had the fewest (1 of 13, 7.7%). The median number of citations of PROMs with an MCID was higher than those without an MCID.Conclusions and RelevanceThe majority of the most-cited PROMs in otolaryngology lack an associated MCID. These data indicated that there are a multitude of PROMs that have been cited hundreds of times and used for decades without the ability to identify whether a particular change in score on the instrument is clinically meaningful. There is a need to determine and validate MCIDs for commonly used PROMs to aid clinical research and trial interpretation.

show abstract

Validation of the LittlEARS® Auditory Questionnaire in children with normal hearing

Cited by 111 publications

References 24 publications

The University of Western Ontario Pediatric Audiological Monitoring Protocol (UWO PedAMP)

The University of Western Ontario Pediatric Audiological Monitoring Protocol (UWO PedAMP)

LittlEars® – Questionário auditivo: adaptação semântica e cultural da versão em Português Brasileiro em pais de crianças com deficiência auditiva

Most-Cited Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Within Otolaryngology—Revisiting the Minimal Clinically Important Difference

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About