Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery, Division of Head, Neck and Reconstructive Surgery, Oslo University Hospital, Rikshospitalet, Oslo, Norway.
Institute of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Audiol Neurootol. 2024;29(2):124-135. doi: 10.1159/000534197. Epub 2023 Nov 2.
The main objective of the study was to validate the Norwegian translation of the Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ) and investigate the SSQ disability profiles in a cochlear implant (CI) user population.
The study involved 152 adult CI users. The mean age at implantation was 55 (standard deviation [SD] = 16), and the mean CI experience was 5 years (SD = 4.8). The cohort was split into three groups depending on the hearing modality: bilateral CIs (BCIs), a unilateral CI (UCI), and bimodal (CI plus contralateral hearing aid; HCI). The SSQ disability profiles of each group were compared with those observed in similar studies using the English version and other translations of the SSQ. Standard values, internal consistency, sensitivity, and floor and ceiling effects were investigated, and the missing-response rates to specific questions were calculated. Relationships to speech perception were measured using monosyllabic word scores and the Norwegian Hearing in Noise Test scores.
In the BCI group, the average scores were around 5.0 for the speech and spatial sections and 7.0 for the qualities section (SD ∼2). The average scores of the UCI and HCI groups were about one point lower than those of the BCI group. The SSQ disability profiles were comparable to the profiles in similar studies. The slopes of the linear regression lines measuring the relationships between the SSQ speech and monosyllabic word scores were 0.8 per 10% increase in the monosyllabic word score for the BCI group (explaining 35% of the variation) and 0.4 for the UCI and HCI groups (explaining 22-23% of the variation).
The Norwegian version of the SSQ measures hearing disability similar to the original English version, and the internal consistency is good. Differences in the recipients' pre-implantation variables could explain some variations we observed in the SSQ responses, and such predictors should be investigated. Data aggregation will be possible using the SSQ as a routine clinical assessment in global CI populations. Moreover, pre-implantation variables should be systematically registered so that they can be used in mixed-effects models.
本研究的主要目的是验证挪威版言语、空间和听觉质量量表（SSQ）的信度，并调查人工耳蜗植入（CI）使用者的 SSQ 残疾概况。
本研究纳入了 152 名成年 CI 用户。平均植入年龄为 55 岁（标准差 [SD] = 16），平均 CI 经验为 5 年（SD = 4.8）。该队列根据听力模式分为三组：双侧 CI（BCI）、单侧 CI（UCI）和双侧（CI 加对侧助听器；HCI）。比较各组的 SSQ 残疾概况，使用英语版本和 SSQ 的其他翻译版本进行比较。研究了标准值、内部一致性、敏感性、地板和天花板效应，并计算了特定问题的缺失反应率。使用单音节词得分和挪威噪声下言语测试得分来衡量与言语感知的关系。
在 BCI 组中，言语和空间部分的平均得分约为 5.0，质量部分的平均得分约为 7.0（SD ∼2）。UCI 和 HCI 组的平均得分比 BCI 组低约 1 分。SSQ 残疾概况与类似研究中的概况相似。衡量 SSQ 言语与单音节词得分之间关系的线性回归线的斜率为，BCI 组中单音节词得分每增加 10%，SSQ 言语得分增加 0.8（解释 35%的变异），UCI 和 HCI 组增加 0.4（解释 22-23%的变异）。
挪威版 SSQ 与原始英语版一样，能较好地衡量听力残疾。接受者植入前变量的差异可以解释我们在 SSQ 反应中观察到的一些差异，应该对这些预测因素进行研究。使用 SSQ 作为全球 CI 人群的常规临床评估，可以进行数据汇总。此外，应系统地登记植入前变量，以便在混合效应模型中使用。
