Download PDF
CC BY 4.0 · Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2025; 29(01): s00441788598
DOI: 10.1055/s-0044-1788598
Original Research

Evaluation of the Nijmegen Cochlear Implant Questionnaire in Danish

Charlotte Skov Neumann 
1   Research Unit for ORL – Head and Neck Surgery and Audiology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark
2   Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
3   OPEN, Odense Patient Data Explorative Network, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark
,
Jesper Hvass Schmidt 
1   Research Unit for ORL – Head and Neck Surgery and Audiology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark
2   Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
3   OPEN, Odense Patient Data Explorative Network, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark
› Author Affiliations Funding The author(s) received no financial support for the research.
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Introduction The Nijmegen cochlear implant questionnaire (NCIQ) is a quantifiable self-assessment health-related quality of life (HRQoL) tool used internationally to determine quality of life (QoL) in cochlear implant (CI) users and to evaluate the implant's subjective benefits.

Objective This study aimed to validate the Danish version of the questionnaire (DA-NCIQ) with a test–retest including 60 participants (30 CI users and 30 CI candidates).

Methods The intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were calculated to evaluate the temporal stability of the participants' answers and the internal consistency of the questionnaire domains was determined using the Cronbach alpha in order to compare these results with the NCIQ's other language versions.

Results The DA-NCIQ was found to have Cronbach alpha coefficients between 0.7 and 0.91, as well as test–retest reliability with ICC values between 0.7 and 0.92. These findings were similar to the original and other language versions of this questionnaire. The Cronbach alpha coefficients varied between 0.73 and 0.89, while the ICC test–retest reliability varied between 0.64 and 0.85. Furthermore, the present study found that participants with CIs had an improved HRQoL in all subdomains, except for the advanced sound perception one, when compared to the CI candidates.

Conclusion The results supported the DA-NCIQ as a reliable instrument to measure the subjective benefits of CIs in postlingually deafened/hearing-impaired adults.

Keywords

cochlear implant - Nijmegen cochlear implant questionnaire - quality of life - cochlear implant surgery - DA-NCIQ

Availability of Data and Material

All data including age and sex, were stored in Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) tools developed by Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, United States [1, 2] and is hosted by the Odense Patient Explorative Network (OPEN) in Southern Denmark. Protocol available: https://open.rsyd.dk/OpenProjects/openProject.jsp?openNo=961&lang=en


Code Availability

Not applicable


Author's Contributions

CSN: Conceptualization, methodology, data collection, data analysis, original draft preparation, review and editing; JHS: Conceptualization, methodology, data analysis, review and editing, funding acquisition and supervision.


Ethics Approval

As there were no patient interventions included in this study no ethical approval was required


Consent to Participate

The participants received oral and written information about the project and publication and were asked to sign a written consent form to enter the study.


Consent for Publications

See consent to participate


Supplementary Material



Publication History

Received: 26 December 2022

Accepted: 23 May 2024

Article published online:
22 January 2025

© 2025. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Thieme Revinter Publicações Ltda.
Rua do Matoso 170, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, CEP 20270-135, Brazil

Bibliographical Record
Charlotte Skov Neumann, Jesper Hvass Schmidt. Evaluation of the Nijmegen Cochlear Implant Questionnaire in Danish. Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2025; 29: s00441788598.
DOI: 10.1055/s-0044-1788598
 

  • References

  • 1 Olusanya BO, Neumann KJ, Saunders JE. The global burden of disabling hearing impairment: a call to action: World Health Organization;. 2014. [Available from: https://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/92/5/13-128728/en/
  • 2 Arnoldner C, Lin VY, Honeder C, Shipp D, Nedzelski J, Chen J. Ten-year health-related quality of life in cochlear implant recipients: prospective SF-36 data with SF-6D conversion. Laryngoscope 2014; 124 (01) 278-282
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Aimoni C, Ciorba A, Hatzopoulos S. et al. Cochlear Implants in Subjects Over Age 65: Quality of Life and Audiological Outcomes. Med Sci Monit 2016; 22: 3035-3042
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Masood MM, Farquhar DR, Brown KD, Pillsbury HC, King ER, O'Connell BP. Hearing Preservation and Speech Outcomes After Cochlear Implantation in Meniere's Disease. Laryngoscope 2020; 130 (12) 2874-2878
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Czerniejewska-Wolska H, Kałos M, Gawłowska M. et al. Evaluation of quality of life in patients after cochlear implantation surgery in 2014-2017. Otolaryngol Pol 2019; 73 (02) 11-17
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 DSOHH DMASu. Vejledning for henvisning af voksne patienter til udredning for cochlear implant. 2014 . [Available from: http://dsohh.dk/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/DSOHH-KKR-CI-voksne1.pdf
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 7 Høreforeningen D. Cochlear implant. [Available from: https://hoereforeningen.dk/viden-om/ci-og-bahs/cochlear-implant/
  • 8 Saraç ET, Batuk MO, Sennaroglu G. Evaluation of the quality of life in adults with cochlear implants: As good as the healthy adults?. Am J Otolaryngol 2019; 40 (05) 720-723
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Capretta NR, Moberly AC. Does quality of life depend on speech recognition performance for adult cochlear implant users?. Laryngoscope 2016; 126 (03) 699-706
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 McRackan TR, Bauschard M, Hatch JL. et al. Meta-analysis of quality-of-life improvement after cochlear implantation and associations with speech recognition abilities. Laryngoscope 2018; 128 (04) 982-990
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 McRackan TR, Bauschard M, Hatch JL. et al. Meta-analysis of Cochlear Implantation Outcomes Evaluated With General Health-related Patient-reported Outcome Measures. Otol Neurotol 2018; 39 (01) 29-36
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Moberly AC, Harris MS, Boyce L. et al. Relating quality of life to outcomes and predictors in adult cochlear implant users: Are we measuring the right things?. Laryngoscope 2018; 128 (04) 959-966
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Hinderink JB, Krabbe PF, Van Den Broek P. Development and application of a health-related quality-of-life instrument for adults with cochlear implants: the Nijmegen cochlear implant questionnaire. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2000; 123 (06) 756-765
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Dong RJ, Liu B, Peng XX, Chen XQ, Gong SS. [Analysis of reliability and validity of the Chinese version of Nijmegen Cochlear Implant Questionnaire]. Zhonghua Er Bi Yan Hou Tou Jing Wai Ke Za Zhi 2010; 45 (10) 818-823
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Sanchez-Cuadrado I, Gavilan J, Perez-Mora R, Muñoz E, Lassaletta L. Reliability and validity of the Nijmegen Cochlear Implant Questionnaire in Spanish. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2015; 272 (07) 1621-1625
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Ottaviani F, Iacona E, Sykopetrites V, Schindler A, Mozzanica F. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Nijmegen Cochlear Implant Questionnaire into Italian. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2016; 273 (08) 2001-2007
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Santos NPD, Couto MIV, Martinho-Carvalho AC. Nijmegen Cochlear Implant Questionnaire (NCIQ): translation, cultural adaptation, and application in adults with cochlear implants. CoDAS 2017; 29 (06) e20170007
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Alnıaçık A, Çakmak E, Öz O. Cross-cultural adaptation of the Nijmegen cochlear implant questionnaire into Turkish language: validity, reliability and effects of demographic variables. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2022; 279 (04) 2175-2182
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Ketterer MC, Knopke S, Häußler SM. et al. Asymmetric hearing loss and the benefit of cochlear implantation regarding speech perception, tinnitus burden and psychological comorbidities: a prospective follow-up study. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2018; 275 (11) 2683-2693
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Farinetti A, Roman S, Mancini J. et al. Quality of life in bimodal hearing users (unilateral cochlear implants and contralateral hearing aids). Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2015; 272 (11) 3209-3215
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Hall DA, Zaragoza Domingo S, Hamdache LZ. et al; International Collegium of Rehabilitative Audiology and TINnitus Research NETwork. A good practice guide for translating and adapting hearing-related questionnaires for different languages and cultures. Int J Audiol 2018; 57 (03) 161-175
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Almeida GVM, Ribas A, Calleros J. Free Field Word recognition test in the presence of noise in normal hearing adults. Rev Bras Otorrinolaringol (Engl Ed) 2017; 83 (06) 665-669
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 23 Harris PA, Taylor R, Minor BL. et al; REDCap Consortium. The REDCap consortium: Building an international community of software platform partners. J Biomed Inform 2019; 95: 103208
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 24 Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)–a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform 2009; 42 (02) 377-381
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 25 Taber KS. The Use of Cronbach's Alpha When Developing and Reporting Research Instruments in Science Education. Res Sci Educ 2018; 48 (06) 1273-1296
    CrossrefSearch in Google Scholar
  • 26 Koo TK, Li MY. A Guideline of Selecting and Reporting Intraclass Correlation Coefficients for Reliability Research. J Chiropr Med 2016; 15 (02) 155-163
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 27 McRackan TR, Hand BN, Velozo CA, Dubno JR. Cochlear Implant Quality of Life C. Validity and reliability of the Cochlear Implant Quality of Life (CIQOL)-35 Profile and CIQOL-10 Global instruments in comparison to legacy instruments. Ear Hear 2021
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 28 Forli F, Lazzerini F, Fortunato S, Bruschini L, Berrettini S. Cochlear Implant in the Elderly: Results in Terms of Speech Perception and Quality of Life. Audiol Neurotol 2019; 24 (02) 77-83
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 29 Sijtsma K. On the Use, the Misuse, and the Very Limited Usefulness of Cronbach's Alpha. Psychometrika 2009; 74 (01) 107-120
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 30 McRackan TR, Hand BN, Velozo CA, Dubno JR. Cochlear Implant Quality of Life Development Consortium. Cochlear Implant Quality of Life (CIQOL): Development of a Profile Instrument (CIQOL-35 Profile) and a Global Measure (CIQOL-10 Global). J Speech Lang Hear Res 2019; 62 (09) 3554-3563
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar