Self-assessment of daily hearing function for implant recipients: A comparison of mean total scores for the Speech Spatial Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ49) with the SSQ12

Abstract

Objective

To assess the relationship and agreement between mean total scores for the Speech Spatial Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ49) and the shorter SSQ12 to measure daily hearing function for a large group of auditory implant recipients.

Methods

Prospective, longitudinal self-assessment by 1013 implant recipients using the SSQ49 at preimplant and at annual post-implant intervals (one, two and three-years) via an international registry. Mean total scores were calculated for the SSQ49 and the extracted SSQ12 responses. Pearson correlation and Bland–Altman agreement were examined between the SSQ49, SSQ12 and transformed SSQ12 versions. Longitudinal mixed-effects models were used to compare changes over time.

Results

Very high correlation was shown between mean total scores for all versions while perfect agreement was not reached. Clinically acceptable agreement (<1.0 unit) between all versions was obtained with the transformed SSQ12 being least biased. All versions showed statistically significant improvement at one-year post-implant (>2.2 units; p < 0.001).

Conclusions

All scale-versions showed comparable sensitivity to changes in self-reported hearing function over time. TheSSQ12 may be considered as a potential time-efficient self-assessment of hearing function for implant recipients in routine practice. Further research may involve independent repeated administration of each scale version.

KEYWORDS:

• Hearing ability
• Hearing function
• SSQ12
• SSQ49
• Self-report evaluation
• Routine practice
• Statistical agreement
• Cochlear implant
• Bone conduction implant
• Acoustic implant
• Middle-ear implant

Acknowledgements

We would also like to thank all participating registered implant recipients who took the time to provide their self-reported views through the evaluation tools during the course of this observational study, to date; those involved in training and implementing the study in Cochlear and especially the clinicians in all participating clinics who have been involved in counselling and providing the observational data that has been used in the analysis of the data subset for this study report. The clinics we wish to acknowledge, specifically, are those who registered one or more recipients by July 31st 2017 with completed SSQ49 responses at one or more intervals: Argentina: Centro de Implantes Cocleares, CIOA, Buenos Aires; Centro de Investigaciones Otoaudiologcas; Consultorios ORL – ICEM – Buenos Aires; Austria: Landesklinikum St. Pölten; Belgium: University Hospital Leuven; Brazil: Complexo Hospitalar Edmundo Vasconcelos; Colombia: Clinica Rivas, Clinica Orlant; Mediglobal IPS; IPS Clinica San Rafael; Clinica Sagrada Familia; Audiofonos AUDIOMEDICA; Instituto para Niños Ciegos y Sordos; TE OIGO Centro Audiológico; Clinica Colombia; Hospital San Jose Infantil; Consultorio to Grupo multicentrico de Colombia; France: Centre Hospitalier Universitarie de Toulouse – Hôpital Purpan; Clinique Causse; Centre Hospitalier Universitarie de Lille; Centre Hospitalier Universitarie de Clermont-Ferrand; Centre Hospitalier Universitarie de Nancy; Centre Hospitalier Universitarie de Besancon; Centre Hospitalier Universitarie de Dijon; Centre Hospitalier Universitarie de Bordeaux; Hôpital Lyon Sud; Clinique Médipole / Amplifon; Germany: Universitäts-HNO Klinik Essen; Universitätsklinik für HNO u Poliklinik Freiburg; Medizinische Hochschule Hannover; Eberhard-Karls-Universität Tübingen; Uniklinik Frankfurt; HNO Bad Aibling; University of Wuerzburg; KMG Kliniken GmbH – Gustrow; Universitätsklinikum Ulm; Hungary: Dept. of ORL HNS, Szeged; Netherlands: Radboud, Nijmegen; Poland: Uniwersytecki Szpital Kliniczny nr 1 w Łodzi; Samodzielny Publiczny Szpital Kliniczny nr 4 w Lublinie; Wojewódzki Szpital Dziecięcy w Bydgoszczy; Uniwersytecki Szpital Kliniczny w Białymstoku; Samodzielny Publiczny Szpital Kliniczny nr 1 Pomorskiego Uniwersytetu Medycznego w Szczecinie; Szpital Kliniczny im. Heliodora Święcickiego Uniwersytetu Medycznego im. Karola Marcinkowskiego w Poznaniu; Bydgoszczy Szpital Uniwersytecki nr 2 w Bydgoszczy; Instytut Centrum Zdrowia Matki Polki w Łodzi; Wojewódzki Szpital Zespolony w Koninie; Uniwersytecki Szpital Kliniczny w Opolu; World Hearing Centre Kajetany; Portugal: CUF Porto Hospital; Sweden: Karolinska Institute Stockholm; Slovenia: University Clinical Centre Maribor; Spain: Clinica Universitaria de Navarra, Pamplona; Fundacion Jiménez Días Madrid; Hospital Clínico Universitario Lozano Blesa, Zaragoza; Hospital de Sant Pau, Barcelona; Gregorio Marañon Hospital, Madrid; Hospital Universitario de Salamanca; Hospital Universitario de Río Hortega, Valladolid; Hospital Universitario de San Pedro, Alcántara Cáceres; Hospital Clínico Universitario de Valencia; Hospital Universitario de la Ribera, Alcira; Hospital Universitario Donostia, San-Sebastián; Turkey: Marmara University Hospital; Istanbul University Cerrahpasa Hospital; Osmangazi University Hosptial; South Africa: Tygerberg Hospital – University Stellenbosch Cochlear Implant Unit; Johannesburg Cochlear Implant Centre; Durban Cochlear Implant Programme.

Correction Statement

This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.