HHS Public Access

Author manuscript
Ear Hear. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2022 July 01.
Author Manuscript

Published in final edited form as:

Ear Hear. 2021 ; 42(4): 1072–1083. doi:10.1097/AUD.0000000000001004.

Quality of Life-CI: Development of an Early Childhood Parent-

Proxy & Adolescent Version
Ivette Cejas, PhD1, Jennifer Coto, PhD1, Christina Sarangoulis, BA1, Chrisanda M.
Sanchez, AuD1, Alexandra L. Quittner, PhD2
1University of Miami Ear Institute, Department of Otolaryngology
2Behavioral Health Systems Research
Author Manuscript

Abstract
Objectives –—Severe to profound hearing loss is associated with communication, social, and
behavioral difficulties that have been linked to worse health-related quality of life (HRQoL)
compared to individuals with normal hearing. HRQoL has been identified as an important health
outcome that measures functional ability, particularly for chronic conditions and disabilities. The
current study developed the QoL-CI for early childhood and adolescents using the recommended
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) guidelines on
patient-reported outcomes.

Design –—Three phases of instrument development were conducted for both the early childhood
(0–5 years old; parent proxy) and adolescent/young adult (13– 22 years old) versions of the QoL-
Author Manuscript

CI. Phase 1 included development of our conceptual framework, which informed the discussion
guides for stakeholder focus groups (e.g., audiologists, physicians, therapists) at CI clinics in
Miami and Philadelphia (n=39). Open-ended interviews with parents (N= 18 for early childhood;
N = 6 for adolescent/young adult version) and adolescents/ young adults using CIs (n=17) were
then completed at both sites during Phase 2. All interviews were transcribed and coded to identify
common themes, which were then used to draft items for the QoL-CI. Both versions of the
QoL-CI were developed using Qualtrics to allow for quick, easy electronic administration of the
instruments on a tablet device. Lastly, Phase 3 included cognitive testing in a new sample (N= 19
early childhood, N = 19 adolescent) to ensure the draft instruments were clear, comprehensive, and
easy to use.

Results –—Participant responses obtained via the open-ended interviews yielded an early
childhood and adolescent version of the QoL-CI that was reportedly easy to complete and
Author Manuscript

comprehensive. The final QoL-CI Early Childhood instrument yielded 35 questions across 8
functional domains (Environmental Sounds, Communication, Social Functioning, Behavior, CI
Device Management and Routines, School, CI Benefits, and Early Intervention). Similarly, the
final QoL-CI Adolescent/Young adult version consisted of 46 items across 8 domains (Noisy

Corresponding Author: Ivette Cejas, PhD, Department of Otolaryngology, University of Miami Ear Institute, 1120 NW 14 St, 5th
Floor, Miami, FL 33136, USA. icejas@med.miami.edu.
Conflicts of Interest and Source of Funding: We would like to acknowledge The National Institute on Deafness and Other
Communication Disorders for funding this project (R03DC014760). We also like to thank the parents and children who participated in
this study and made this work possible by allowing us to learn about their daily experiences.
 Cejas et al. Page 2

Environments, Communication, CI Usage and Management, Advocacy, Social Functioning,

Author Manuscript

Emotional Functioning, Acceptance, Independence).

Conclusions –—The QoL-CI is a condition-specific quality of life instrument that can be used
for children ages birth through 22 years. These instruments capture the “whole” child by not
only focusing on communication and auditory skills, but also academic, social and emotional
functioning. Once validated, these CI-specific measures will enable providers to track long-term
outcomes and evaluate the efficacy of new interventions to improve overall CI use and quality of
life for pediatric and young adult users.

Introduction
Over the past two decades, tremendous progress has been made in defining and measuring
health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and in recognizing its importance as a key health
Author Manuscript

outcome measure (Crosby et al. 2003; Garratt et al. 2002; Higginson & Carr, 2001; Palermo
et al. 2008; Quittner et al. 2009). The Centers for Disease Control has identified quality of
life as a central public health goal for three Healthy People initiatives (CDC, 2020). HRQoL
measures provide unique information about the impact of a disability and its treatment
on an individual’s functional ability (Palermo et al. 2008; Quittner et al. 2009). Both the
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) have both
recommended that condition-specific, rather than generic, HRQoL measures be developed
and implemented (FDA 2009; EMA 2005). Despite this recognition, little is known about
quality of life of children using cochlear implants (CIs) and there are currently no validated
instruments of quality of life that can be used throughout childhood. Thus, this study
aimed to develop condition-specific quality of life instruments that can be used from early
childhood through adolescence and young adulthood.
Author Manuscript

Although conventional measures of auditory and communication abilities are essential, they
do not adequately capture the broader impact of childhood hearing loss on the patient’s
physical, behavioral, social and emotional functioning. This is particularly true for children
with severe to profound hearing loss receiving CI(s). This level of hearing loss is associated
with measurable deficits in HRQoL, reflecting the broad effects of hearing loss and its
concomitant effects on language learning, social and emotional functioning, and academic
performance. Studies of cochlear implantation typically focus on clinical measures of
efficacy related to communication (e.g., auditory skills, speech), which does not represent
the crucial assessment of the impact of CI’s on everyday functioning (communication,
emotional, social). HRQoL is defined as a multidimensional construct that captures four core
domains: 1) disease state and physical symptoms, 2) functional status (e.g., performing daily
activities), 3) emotional functioning, and 4) social functioning (Hays 2005; Rothman et al.
Author Manuscript

2007). The importance of considering broader parent and patient-reported outcomes, such
as HRQoL, has been adopted as a priority by the National Institute of Health, the Food and
Drug Administration, and the Center for Medicare and Medicaid services (FDA Guidance
2009; NIH 2005; CMS 2016). Assessing how children and adolescents, as well as parents of
pediatric CI recipients, perceive their health and functional ability is part of the movement to
establish evidence-based, family-centered care that includes patients and family members in
healthcare decision-making.

Ear Hear. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2022 July 01.

 Cejas et al. Page 3

HRQoL measures can be generic or condition-specific. Generic instruments typically

Author Manuscript

include global or summary ratings of multiple domains and allow for comparison across
different groups of patients. However, they lack precision and sensitivity in detecting
changes over time (Quittner et al., 2003). In contrast, condition-specific measures of
HRQOL address the challenges associated with a particular condition and have greater
clinical relevance to patients and families. Rigorous standards for the development and
psychometric evaluation of HRQoL measures have been established, and efforts to develop
reliable and valid measures of HRQoL have been successful (Hoffman et al. 2019;
McRackan et al. 2019; Quittner et al. 2012; Sawicki et al. 2011). Condition-specific HRQoL
measures contain items that come directly from patient and parent interviews, and reflect the
domains of functioning that are relevant and deemed important by them (Wiebe et al. 2003).
This relatively new field has generated excitement and rapid development of condition-
specific HRQoL measures for adult and pediatric populations with chronic conditions, such
Author Manuscript

as asthma, cystic fibrosis, diabetes and cancer (Bujang et al. 2018; Cruz-Cejas & Quittner
2009; Fayers & Bottomley, 2002; Juniper et al. 1992; Quittner et al. 2005; Quittner et al.
2013).

HRQoL Measures
A review of the literature on childhood deafness and cochlear implantation illustrated the
lack of condition-specific measures for this population. Although children with hearing loss
all have some degree of sensory deprivation, the challenges of children using CIs are unique.
Children with CIs have severe to profound hearing loss and in general experience more
language delays and academic difficulties (Niparko et al. 2010; Jorgensen et al. 2018). The
audiological management is also different, including frequency of appointments compared to
children with mild or moderate hearing losses using hearing aids. According to the Pediatric
Author Manuscript

Minimum Speech battery, children using CIs with less than one years’ experience should
be followed every 2–3 months compared to hearing aid users that should be followed every
3 months (Uhler, Warner-Czyz, Gifford, & PMSTB Group 2017). Further, data supports
that children with CIs also experience different social and academic challenges compared
to children using other hearing devices (Harris & Terlektsi, 2011; Theunissen et al. 2012;
Toblin et al. 1999). Thus, these studies support the need for a CI-specific measure that
adequately captures overall functioning for children using CIs.

Despite the evidence of the unique challenges of CI users, the majority of studies have
used generic rather than condition-specific measures. For example, The Pediatric Quality
of Life Inventory (Peds-QL; Varni 2001) is a common measure used to assess quality
of life in children and adolescents ages 2–18 years. Although the Peds-QL offers some
condition-specific modules (e.g., asthma, cancer, diabetes), a hearing loss specific module
Author Manuscript

is not available. Other HRQoL measures used in research with children with CIs include
the SF-36, Health Utilities Index, and KINDL (Beadle et al. 2000; Cheng et al. 2000;
Krabbe et al. 2000; Zaidman-Ziat et al. 2008; Meserole et al. 2014; Ravens-Sieberer &
Bullinger 1998). The KINDL has been used in previous studies to compare children with
CIs to hearing peers, however, studies have demonstrated mixed results (Warner-Czyz et
al. 2009; Loy et al. 2010; Huber 2005). Specifically, Warner-Czyz and colleagues (2009)
found that children ages 4–7 with CIs rated their HRQoL similarly to hearing peers

Ear Hear. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2022 July 01.

 Cejas et al. Page 4

while Huber (2005) noted that children ages 8–12 with CIs rated their HRQoL lower
Author Manuscript

than a normative sample. The aforementioned measures are insufficient and have several
limitations. Specifically, items are not normed according to developmental periods (e.g.,
early childhood, adolescence), they lack inclusion of core domains of HRQoL, and do not
capture the common challenges experienced by children with hearing loss.

Hearing loss specific measures of HRQoL are limited. To our knowledge, the Hearing
Environments and Reflection on Quality of Life (HEAR-QL-26; Umansky et al. 2011)
is the only hearing loss specific measure that is available. The HEAR-QL was used to
assess children using hearing aids, personal frequency modulation (FM) systems, or CIs
and was developed using existing literature and focus groups with children with mild
to profound hearing losses and their parents. The developers did not use the process of
instrument development advocated by the FDA or EMA (EMA 2005; FDA 2009) and used
an extremely heterogeneous sample of children in creating the items. Furthermore, they
Author Manuscript

did not include domains of functioning that represent key HRQoL dimensions (e.g., use
of device--either hearing aids/CIs; Morettin et al. 2013). Additionally, this measure is only
available for use for children ages 7–12 years, does not have a parent-proxy measure, and
only included 8 children with a CI in their sample.

There are three measures assessing HRQoL in children with CIs via parent report (Table
1). The Parent Views and Experiences with Pediatric Cochlear Implant Questionnaire
(PEVCIQ; Nunes et al. 2005) focuses on children ages 5–16 years and is administered using
a semi-structured interview, which can be time intensive. Unfortunately, this measure would
be difficult to widely implement, given the training and resources necessary to administer a
semi-structured interview. The Children’s Quality of Life Questionnaire (Chmiel et al. 2000)
covers the full developmental range and is intended for children and adolescents ages 3–20
Author Manuscript

years who are CI users. However, this questionnaire only measures two subscales (benefits
and problems) and does not measure any of the core domains of functioning (social), making
it an inadequate measure for assessing HRQoL in children and adolescents with CIs. There
is also the Children with Cochlear Implants: Parental Perspectives measure (CCIP; Archbold
et al. 2002). This questionnaire was designed for children who were implanted for at least 2
years and diagnosed with hearing loss by 3 years of age. Because it is parent report only, this
measure lacks the perspective of school-age children and teens which is critical to assessing
their quality of life. In addition, children need to be implanted for at least two years, thus,
this measure does not capture young children who were recently implanted and any potential
areas that might need intervention.

To ameliorate the gap in the literature, Hoffman and colleagues (2019) developed a CI-
Author Manuscript

specific HRQoL measure for school-age children, the Quality of Life- CI. This measure was
developed following the FDA guidance and NIH recommendations and includes a self-report
and parent-proxy version for children ages 6–12 years. This measure captures children’s
academic functioning, acceptance of hearing loss, listening fatigue, device management,
as well as other domains (see Hoffman et al. 2019 for further details). The current study
uses the same rigorous standards, methods, and investigative team as the Hoffman and
colleagues (2019) study. This study expands the QoL-CI instruments to the early childhood
and adolescent developmental periods.

Ear Hear. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2022 July 01.

 Cejas et al. Page 5

The availability of a CI-specific HRQoL for pediatrics will complement the already
Author Manuscript

available CI-specific measure for adults, the Cochlear Implant Quality of Life (CIQOL-35;
McRackan et al. 2019). The CIQOL-35 consists of 35 items in six domains (communication,
emotional, entertainment, environment, listening effort, and social). This measure was
created following FDA and NIH recommendations and demonstrates the need for CI specific
measures. The availability of CI-specific measures for both pediatrics and adults will allow
for tracking and monitoring of quality of life throughout the lifespan.

Thus, the purpose of this study was to develop and expand the Quality of Life-CI
instruments for early childhood (0–5 years) and adolescence/young adulthood (13–22 years).
The QoL-CI instruments will cover the entire pediatric age spectrum from infancy to age
22, providing developmentally appropriate instruments to track longitudinal outcomes. Our
measure includes young adults 18–22, as this important developmental window captures
adolescents finishing high school and transitioning toward independence. This will enable
Author Manuscript

hearing health providers to evaluate changes in HRQoL over time, test new devices and
processors, and identify deficits in functioning (e.g., social skills, adjustment problems) that
require assistance and further support or intervention.

Materials and Methods

We engaged in a three-phase process to develop the early childhood and adolescent/young
adult versions of the Quality of Life- CI instruments. This study was reviewed and approved
by the University of Miami Institutional Review Board (IRB). Phase 1 consisted of a
comprehensive literature review, development of a conceptual framework, and focus groups
with key stakeholders/providers (e.g., CI surgeons, audiologists, auditory-verbal therapists,).
Phase 2 consisted of qualitative interviews with parents of children with CIs ages 0–5 and
Author Manuscript

patients with CIs ages 13 and older. A small sample of parents of adolescent CI users
also completed open-ended interviews to ensure that we were not missing any important
areas of functioning. Phase 2 also included content analysis of interviews which generated
saturation matrices and item generation for the preliminary Quality of Life-CI instruments.
Lastly, during Phase 3 cognitive testing was completed in a new sample to ensure the draft
instrument was clear, comprehensive, and easy to use. Each of these phases was completed
for both an early childhood group (Ages 0–5) and adolescent/young adult group (Ages
13–22).

Participants
Phase 1- Stakeholder Focus Groups: Six focus groups were conducted with
stakeholders (n = 39) from two national pediatric CI centers: The University of Miami
Author Manuscript

Cochlear Implant program; n = 5) and Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia Cochlear Implant

Program (CHOP; n = 1). Participants consisted of an array of multidisciplinary healthcare
providers (n = 39), including audiologists and speech and language pathologists. See Table 2
for demographic data.

Ear Hear. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2022 July 01.

 Cejas et al. Page 6

Early Childhood Measure

Author Manuscript

Phase 2 Open Ended Interviews (n=19): Inclusion criteria for parent-child dyads

were: 1) children with unilateral or bilateral CIs, 2) chronological age between 0 years, 1
months to 5 years, 11 months, and 3) able to communicate in English and/or sign language.
Exclusion criteria included: 1) children with developmental disabilities that severely limited
their ability to complete open-ended or cognitive interviews (e.g., severe cerebral palsy or
Autism Spectrum Disorder), and 2) children/parents who did not speak English and/or sign
language. Recruitment was conducted via distribution of flyers to all families of children
with CIs in our age range.

Participants had a mean age of 4.29 years (SD = 1.29), 47.4% were female, and over
half were White (52.6%). Insurance data indicated that 47.4% had Medicaid, and 47.4%
had private insurance. Most were bilateral CI users (84.2%), had congenital hearing loss
Author Manuscript

(78.9%), and were diagnosed within a year after birth (84.2%). Table 3 provides additional
descriptive data. Parents who completed Phase 2 were mostly mothers (89.5%), within the
ages of 30–39 years (68.4%) and most earned a college degree (47.4%). Table 4 provides
additional descriptive data.

Phase 3 Cognitive Testing (n = 19): Inclusion and exclusion criteria were the same
as Phase 2. Participants had a mean age of 3.46 years (SD = 1.36), 35% were female, and
36.8% were White. Insurance data indicated that 47.4% had Medicaid and 52.6% had private
insurance. The majority of the sample were bilateral CI users (87.5%), had congenital
hearing loss (65%), and were diagnosed within a year after birth (73.7%). Table 2 provides
additional sample descriptive data. Parents who completed Phase 3 were mostly mothers
(80%), within the ages of 20–29 years (45%) and earned a college degree (30%). Table 4
provides additional sample descriptive data.
Author Manuscript

Adolescent/Young Adult Measure

Phase 2 Open Ended Interviews (n=36): Inclusion criteria for parent-child dyads
were: 1) children with unilateral or bilateral CIs, 2) chronological age between 13 years, 1
months – 21 years, 11 months and 3) able to communicate in English and/or sign language.
Exclusion criteria included: 1) children with developmental disabilities that severely limited
their ability to complete open-ended or cognitive interviews (e.g., severe cerebral palsy or
Autism Spectrum Disorder), and 2) children/parents who did not speak English and/or sign
language. Recruitment was conducted via distribution of flyers to all families of children
with CIs in our age range.

Participants had a mean age of 17.05 years (SD = 3.03), 47.4% were female, and over
Author Manuscript

half were White (63.2%). Insurance data indicated that 14.3% were uninsured, 21.4% had
Medicaid, and 50% had private insurance. More than half of the sample were bilateral
CI users (63.2%), had congenital hearing loss (57.9%), and were diagnosed within one
year after birth (58.8%). Table 3 provides additional sample descriptive data. Parents who
completed Phase 3 were mostly mothers (60%), within the ages of 40–49 years (45.5%)
and earned a college or graduate degree (36.5%; 36.5%). Table 4 provides additional sample
descriptive data.

Ear Hear. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2022 July 01.

 Cejas et al. Page 7

Phase 3 Cognitive Testing (n = 17): Inclusion and exclusion criteria were the same as
Author Manuscript

Phase 2. Participants had a mean age of 17.06 years (SD = 3.17), 52.9% were female, and
over half were White (64.7%). Insurance data indicated that 9.1% were uninsured, 45.5%
had Medicaid, and 45.5% had private insurance. Approximately 59% of the sample were
bilateral CI users (58.8%), had congenital hearing loss (41.2%), and were diagnosed within
one year after birth (47.4%). Table 2 provides additional descriptive data. Parents who
completed Phase 2 were mostly mothers (46.2%), within the ages of 40–49 years (46.2%)
and earned a college degree (46.2%). Table 4 provides additional sample descriptive data.

Procedures
The process of instrument development followed the steps outlined in the FDA Guidance
on Patient Reported Outcomes (PRO; FDA Guidance, 2009). As part of this study, we
completed the first two steps in the PRO Measurement Wheel, which requires a conceptual
Author Manuscript

framework that specifies the population and key concepts. The guidance recommends a
comprehensive review of everything that matters to patients and for item development
to use language taken directly from patients. The first step of this process includes the
comprehensive literature review, followed by focus groups to elicit as many concepts as
possible to capture the entire impact of hearing loss.

Phase 1: This phase consisted of a literature review, development of a conceptual model

and discussion guides for the focus groups and open-ended interviews. Prior measures of
quality of life were reviewed, in addition to other important concepts related to the effects
of hearing loss on functional ability (e.g., academic performance). Next, focus groups were
conducted with providers using semi-structured discussion guides. Stakeholder focus groups
were conducted to elicit the perspective of hearing healthcare providers on the impact of
Author Manuscript

hearing loss and CIs on quality of life. Specific items discussed with the stakeholder focus
groups included both global questions (i.e. “Tell me a little bit about how having CIs has
affected the teens/young adults and families you work with.”), as well as specific questions
(i.e. “Do they report removing their device(s) in certain situations?; How would you describe
their ability to focus and/or pay attention?”).

Phase 2: Individual open-ended interviews were conducted using the discussion guides
from Phase 1. Interviews were audiotaped, transcribed, and coded for content analysis
using NVivo (Richards, 2005). Participants whose preferred language was American Sign
Language, completed the interview with an interpreter present.

Phase 3: Two preliminary draft questionnaires (QoL-CI) were developed using data
obtained from the content analyses of Phases 1–2 for each age group. The draft measures
Author Manuscript

were then tested using cognitive, “think aloud” procedures (Schwarz & Sudman 1996;
Quittner et al. 2000) with a new sample. These “think aloud” procedures have been used
in previous research (Hoffman et al. 2019; Quittner et al. 2013). Think aloud interviews
include questions about what each item means and their rating of the item’s importance
and relevance (e.g., “Is this question relevant to your child?,” How often do you deal with
this issue?,” Are we missing an important issues?). In addition, the probing questions help
to identify the reference period the respondent was using to answer the questions and adds

Ear Hear. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2022 July 01.

 Cejas et al. Page 8

information regarding their interpretation of the items. Paraphrasing by respondents’ sheds

Author Manuscript

light on whether they understood the terms and the contexts that were used, and whether
they extracted the intended meaning from the items.

All interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. As with Phase 2, participants whose
preferred language was American Sign Language, completed the interview through an
interpreter. Data from this Phase was used to modify the instruments accordingly. Based
on FDA recommendations, a one-week recall period was utilized to ensure that participants
rated recent events that were not influenced by poor memory or recall (FDA 2009; Quittner
et al. 2013).

Measures
Demographic and Medical Questionnaire: Background questionnaires were
completed by both providers and parents. The brief demographic questionnaire assessed
Author Manuscript

key demographic information (e.g., age, gender, race/ethnicity, educational background,

child’s etiology). Medical chart reviews were also performed to obtain medical (e.g., date of
diagnosis/implantation) and audiological (e.g., aided access, speech perception scores, data
logging) data for the children and adolescents.

QoL-CI: For the early childhood version, a parent-proxy version was administered.

Similarly, the adolescent/young adult version was completed by the CI recipient
electronically. For both the parent-proxy and self-report versions, questionnaires were
administered electronically using iPads. Questionnaires were created using Qualtrics,
a HIPAA compliant online survey program. During Phase 3, parents and adolescents
completed the questionnaires, followed by the cognitive testing interviews. The
questionnaires were administered via iPad with automatic scoring. Items were scored on a 4-
Author Manuscript

point Likert scale. For each domain, a mean score was calculated and then transformed into
a scaled score using the following formula [(mean of responses)−1)/3] × 100. Consistent
with previous literature, if more than half of the domain responses were missing, the domain
score was not calculated (Siddiqui 2015). For the current study, there was no missing data as
all participants completed each item of the QoL-CI.

Data Analysis
Content Analyses of Open-Ended Interviews: Content derived from the provider
focus groups and open-ended interviews were used for item generation. All transcripts were
uploaded into NVivo, a software analysis program for qualitative data. The coding team
consisted of the principal investigator, co-investigators and research assistants/coordinators.
Meetings were held throughout the coding process to discuss questions and challenges
Author Manuscript

related to coding. Interrater reliability was calculated using Cohen’s kappa. For further detail
regarding coding procedures, please see Hoffman et al., 2019.

Saturation of Content from Open-Ended Interviews

Saturation of content was calculated by assessing the frequency with which each item was
mentioned by adolescents and parents, and the point at which no new content was identified.
We followed the recommendations by Guest and colleagues (2006) which define saturation

Ear Hear. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2022 July 01.

 Cejas et al. Page 9

as the point in which data collection is not contributing to any changes to the codebook.
Author Manuscript

NVivo saturation matrices were used to guide the item generation phase for the QoL-CI
instruments.

Development of Draft Measures: Items were generated to reflect the most frequent

themes identified in the saturation matrices (occurring across at least 25% of transcripts) and
aggregated into scales based on the conceptual framework in Phase I. Items were written
using language from the open-ended interviews by parents and adolescents to improve the
clarity, comprehension, and content validity of the measures (Creswell & Miller 2000).
Frequent themes were aggregated into scales based on the original framework.

Cognitive Testing: Cognitive interviewing techniques are now widely used to gain

information from respondents about how they understand and formulate their answers to
questionnaires (Quittner et al., 2000). They have been used to identify a variety of problems
Author Manuscript

with questionnaires, such as awkward wording, redundancy of items, problematic terms,

and difficult response options. These techniques have recently been applied successfully
to the development of HRQoL instruments (Quittner, Cejas, & Blackwell, 2013). During
the cognitive interview process, we captured patient and parent feedback on the items and
used an iterative process to modify the questions as needed to improve their clarity and
comprehensiveness of the QoL-CI instruments.

Data from the cognitive testing phases were used to examine preliminary floor and ceiling
effects and item distributions (Hays & Hayashi 1990; Hays et al. 1993). Responses to
each question were grouped together to identify potential problems with the items (e.g.,
no variability across respondents) or response scales (e.g., floor, ceiling effects). Revisions
were made to develop the final draft instruments for both the QoL-CI early childhood and
Author Manuscript

adolescent/ young adult versions.

Results
Early Childhood Measure:
Phase 1:
Stakeholder Interviews:  Twenty-three providers (n=23) participated in the early childhood
focus groups. Providers included audiologists (n=8), speech language pathologists (n=5),
physicians (n=3) and educators (n=6). Their experience with CIs ranged from less than
1 year to over 10 years. Most of the providers were female (n=20). See Table 2 for
complete demographic information. Communication and child behavior were among the
most common themes reported by providers. Providers stated that parents often report that
Author Manuscript

narrating and talking frequently is not natural for them. In addition, providers discussed the
child’s frustration with difficulties communicating.

Phase 2:
Open Ended Interviews:  All transcripts (n=18) were coded using codebooks designed
by the research team. The final version of the codebook had 20 major themes and
62 subthemes. The themes were divided into larger categories (Environmental Sounds,

Ear Hear. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2022 July 01.

 Cejas et al. Page 10

Communication, Social Functioning, Behavior, CI Device Management and Routines,

Author Manuscript

School, CI Benefits, and Early Intervention). These themes were used to develop the items
that were evaluated in the cognitive testing phase.

Major themes that occurred at 100% saturation, meaning all parents mentioned at least one
of the subthemes, were “child autonomy,” “CI benefit,” “CI candidacy,” “communication,”
“device management,” “family,” and “peer interactions”. Other major themes that also had
high saturation were “behavior” (94.4%), “physical/recreational activity” (94.4%), “school”
(88.9%), and “therapies” (94.4%).

Fifty themes occurred at a frequency greater than 25%, and saturation was achieved by the
9th interview for all subthemes. indicating that no new information emerged after the 9th
interview. A review of the major themes indicated that saturation occurred after the fourth
interview. See supplemental material for the saturation matrix with the 20 major themes.
Author Manuscript

Item Generation:  By looking at the subthemes and major themes, 8 broad categories were
developed to encompass all items for the questionnaire. The categories were Environmental
Sounds, Communication, Social Functioning, Behavior, CI Device Management and
Routines, School, CI Benefits, and Early Intervention.

Using the transcripts and saturation matrix, items were created using the language that
parents used. For example, when parents were asked about their child’s behavior, many
mentioned the word “tantrum.” A question was created to reflect this; “How often does your
child have a tantrum when not getting his/her way?” The initial version of the instrument
had 8 domains and 39 items.

Phase 3:
Author Manuscript

Cognitive Testing:  For the early childhood version, nineteen parents who did not
participate in any of the prior phases (Table 4) completed the QoL-CI Early Childhood
questionnaire and provided feedback about the instrument and items. The initial version of
the instrument contained 39 items across 8 domains. After examining cognitive interviews
with 4 participants, some questions were altered in response to parent feedback. We added
an option to skip the school section of the questionnaire if the child doesn’t attend nursery/
preschool or Kindergarten. We also added an additional question in the communication
section to query whether the child is using words or vocalizing/babbling.

After cognitive testing was completed, we reviewed all items and parent feedback and made
necessary modifications. Overall, parents agreed that the questionnaire covered all domains
of their child’s life. They enjoyed answering the questionnaire and felt the questions were
Author Manuscript

easy to understand. Although the feedback was mostly positive, modifications were made to
clarify some questions, remove questions that did not work, and add “not applicable” as an
option for specific questions (How easy is it for your child to follow along with TV shows
or movies?), and a “skip” option if the child is less than 3 years old. A few questions were
slightly reworded (i.e., changing the words “academic progress” to “learn in school”).

Ear Hear. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2022 July 01.

 Cejas et al. Page 11

Descriptive statistics were reviewed for each item (see Table 5). The means for scales ranged
Author Manuscript

from 51.05 – 83.33 and standard deviations from 8.78 – 20.22. Item level means ranged
from 1.84 – 3.74, and standard deviations ranged from .51 – 1.4. Good response variability
was seen across items. Following this iterative process, the final instrument resulted in 8
domains and 35 questions (Table 6).

Adolescent/Young Adult Measure:

Phase 1:
Stakeholder Interviews:  Additional stakeholder focus groups were conducted to assess
provider experiences with managing adolescent and young adult CI users. Sixteen providers,
consisting of audiologists (n=10), speech language pathologists (n = 2), physician (n = 1),
educators for the Deaf (n = 2) and a social worker (n = 1) participated. Half of the providers
had 10 or more years of experience working with children with CIs (n = 8). See Table 2 for
Author Manuscript

the demographics of the providers. Communication was a key area identified by providers
for this age group. For example, one provider said, “I think the environment is a huge impact
on how they’re hearing, but I think it’s also their language. They may not have the language,
you know, the global understanding or language to fall back on to fill in the gaps and so they
are working really hard in those situations.” Acceptance and social functioning were also
discussed. Providers mentioned that some adolescents/young adults have no problem telling
people about their hearing loss, while others are more apprehensive. They also highlighted
significant variability in friendships for this age group. Providers described some CI users
in this age group as “loners” or only having one friend, while others had large groups of
friends.

Phase 2:
Author Manuscript

Open Ended Interviews:  Adolescents (n=17) and their parents (n=6) reported similar
themes during the open-ended interviews, thus, interviews were coded using the same
codebook created by the research team. The final codebook contained 20 major themes
and 109 subthemes. Eight larger categories were developed using these themes (Noisy
Environments, Communication, CI Usage and Management, Advocacy, Social Functioning,
Emotional Functioning, Acceptance, Independence).

Parents of the adolescents/young adults had 76 subthemes that occurred at a frequency

greater than 25% and saturation was not achieved until the final (7th) interview. The
adolescents/young adults discussed 71 subthemes that occurred at a frequency greater than
25%, with saturation achieved by the 14th interview. All 20 major themes occurred at a
frequency greater than 25% in both the parent and adolescent/young adult group. Saturation
Author Manuscript

of the major themes was achieved by the 4th interview for parents and the 3rd interview for
adolescents/young adults.

Given the importance of peer relationships in adolescence, the major theme of friendship
was subdivided to obtain a better understanding of what adolescents’ report under this
category. Topics included were “activities with friends (100% saturation)”, “bullying
(88.24% saturation),” “dating (94.12% saturation),” “hearing versus Deaf world (11.76%
saturation),” “making friends (82.35%),” and “support from others”(47.06%). Other major

Ear Hear. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2022 July 01.

 Cejas et al. Page 12

themes discussed by adolescents included “advocating for self,” “mood,” “work and
Author Manuscript

volunteering,” “future,” “communication,” and “family relationships.”

While some major themes were the same in both the birth to five and adolescent/young
adult measure, others were specific to the developmental period. For example, device
management, communication, noisy environments and school were consistent themes
reported by parents and CI users in both the early childhood and adolescent age groups.
In contrast, behavior, CI candidacy and developmental milestones were only discussed by
parents of children in the early childhood group. Similarly, advocating for self, mood and
work were specific to the adolescent/young adult group.

Item Generation: Using the subthemes and major themes, 8 broad categories were
developed to encompass all items of the questionnaire. The categories were Noisy
Environments, Communication, CI Usage and Management, Advocacy, Social Functioning,
Author Manuscript

Emotional Functioning, Acceptance, Independence

By reviewing the transcripts and saturation matrices, items were created for each category.
Wording of the questions mirrored the language used by the adolescents/young adults. For
example, adolescents/young adults used the word “mad,” while the parents typically used
the word “angry.” A question on the adolescent/young adult measure reads “How often do
you feel mad?”

The draft of the QoL-CI adolescent/young adult version consisted of 47 items assessing 8
domains (e.g., communication, independence, emotional functioning).

Phase 3:
Author Manuscript

Cognitive Testing: Similar to the early childhood version, we completed the cognitive
testing for the QoL-CI adolescents/young adults. Nineteen adolescents (n = 19) completed
the questionnaire and provided feedback (See Table 3 for sample demographics). Following
the first 8 participants, revisions were made to the response choices on two scales.
Specifically, wording was changed from confidence to comfortable. In addition, we removed
the item; “How often are you happy about having your CI(s)” since participants uniformly
responded, “very true” and felt that it was not a necessary item. Wording was also changed
on a few questions to make them clearer. Specifically, the item “How comfortable are you
traveling with your CI(s)” was modified to “How comfortable are you traveling away from
home with your CI(s) (e.g., sleepovers, vacation, camp)?”

Overall, participants described the QoL-CI questionnaire as appropriate, clear, and easy to
complete. When asked how they felt about the questionnaire, participants responded by
Author Manuscript

saying “All of them (the questions) were great,” “it was good,” “it’s useful because …
people don’t get it ,” “…to answer these questions it is very helpful…” Adolescents reported
that the measure captured their experiences with hearing loss and CIs fully. Many reported
enjoying completing the questionnaire and described the items as very relevant to their life.
The only modification after the initial changes were adding a “Not Applicable” response
choice to the question “How comfortable are you asking for accommodations (e.g. extra

Ear Hear. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2022 July 01.

 Cejas et al. Page 13

time, preferred seating, notetakers)?”. This option was added because some respondents did
Author Manuscript

not need any accommodations at this point.

Descriptive statistics were reviewed for all items (see Table 5). Means for the scales ranged
from 58.25 – 71.05 and standard deviations from 14.03 – 22.20. Item level means ranged
from 2.26 – 3.63, and standard deviations ranged from .459 – 1.17. The final QoL-CI
Adolescent/Young adult version consisted of 8 domains and 46 items (see Table 6).

Discussion
More than 50 years ago, the World Health Organization proposed the first definition of
HRQoL as “a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being, and not merely
the absence of disease” (World Health Organization [WHO] 1947, p. 29). Recently,
health-related quality of life and patient reported outcomes have been recognized as
Author Manuscript

critical to the evaluation of the benefits of new interventions and device health outcomes
(Palermo et al. 2008; Quittner et al. 2009). This is particularly true for conditions, such as
hearing loss, which have documented effects on communication, behavior, and emotional
functioning. The purpose of this study was to develop CI-specific health-related quality
of life instruments for pediatric CI users using the FDA Guidance on Patient Reported
Outcomes.

Clinicians and researchers have historically utilized generic measures of quality of life
(Quittner, Cejas, Barnard, & Niparko 2016; Warner-Czyz et al. 2009). However, these
measures do not adequately capture functional ability for patients with particular conditions
or disabilities and are not sensitive to detecting changes based on interventions. Current
literature, as well as, FDA and EMA guidelines strongly recommend use of condition or
disease specific measures. Hearing loss is diverse, as it includes individuals with mild
Author Manuscript

hearing loss who may not use any hearing device due to residual hearing, individuals who
only use hearing devices in certain situations (i.e., school) or individuals with severe to
profound hearing loss who undergo cochlear implantation. Thus, a generic hearing loss
measure would not address the unique challenges of children with CIs and ignores the
already identified differences between users of hearing aids and CIs, such as language
delays, academic performance, and emotional functioning (Niparko et al. 2010; Jorgensen et
al. 2018).

To date, the only self-report CI-specific quality of life measure for children is the QoL-CI
(Hoffman et al. 2019). The QoL-CI is only available for school-age children ages 6–12,
with a parent proxy. The current study utilized the FDA PRO guidance and a methodology
consistent with the Hoffman and colleagues study (FDA 2009) to extend the QoL-CI to
Author Manuscript

early childhood and adolescence. Our comprehensive data obtained from the focus groups,
interviews, and cognitive testing provided insights into the functional ability of children with
CIs across all ages. These data highlighted the importance of assessing condition-specific
content that might otherwise be missed when using generic measures of quality of life. An
in-depth review of the content posed by professionals, children with CIs, and their parents,
identified key domains that continue to be important across the pediatric age continuum.
Topics such as communication, device management, and social functioning were key areas

Ear Hear. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2022 July 01.

 Cejas et al. Page 14

of functioning raised in both the early childhood and adolescent versions. Furthermore,
Author Manuscript

noisy environments, acceptance of hearing loss, emotional functioning, and behavior were
among key areas reported during the current study which also appear on the school-age
version of the QoL-CI study (Hoffman et al. 2019). Other areas, such as independence
and early intervention, were topics only discussed for specific developmental periods,
adolescent/young adult and early childhood, respectively.

These measures can also be used to assess the “whole child,” rather than focusing solely on
auditory and linguistic performance (Cejas & Quittner 2018). All versions of the QoL-CI
were developed by the same research group, using the same rigorous methods. Thus, this
will allow for easy comparison of scores as the child develops. In addition, our open-ended
interviews included experienced CI users, as well as new CI users, to ensure that all
appropriate areas were captured regardless of where the child was in their hearing journey.
Once validated, these measures will provide unique and valuable information about the
Author Manuscript

effects of cochlear implantation on a child’s functional ability and expand on traditional

measures of auditory and communicative abilities by assessing keys areas that are often
overlooked (e.g., social, emotional, behavioral, and academic functioning).

Social functioning was a primary topic of discussion across age groups. This is consistent
with national and international studies reporting social conversations, social interactions
and friendships as primary areas of concern for children with hearing loss (Haukedal et al.
2018; Hoffman, Cejas, & Quittner 2016; Punch & Hyde 2011). A study in the Netherlands
identified that children with CIs ages 1.5 to 5 years old had delayed social competence and
emotion regulation difficulties compared to children with normal hearing (Wiefferink et al.
2012). Other studies conducted with adolescents continued to identify social functioning,
school, and identity as areas of difficulty (Rich et al. 2013). These studies along with our
Author Manuscript

current data highlight the need for better evaluation and monitoring of children’s social
functioning. The QoL-CI may serve as a measure to quickly monitor social and emotional
functioning for pediatric CI users.

Additionally, the measure is administered via an iPad or tablet which facilitates quicker
completion, approximately 20 minutes, and does not require additional staff effort for data
entry or analysis. This method of administration also allows parents and patients to complete
the QoL measure while waiting for appointments or during audiology visits. In addition,
it increases the feasibility of incorporating yearly evaluations into CI programs and allows
for comparisons of quality of life throughout different developmental periods. Further, the
electronic method of administration allows for the visual and audio supports that are needed
for school-age children, as well as individuals with language delays. For pediatric users who
Author Manuscript

may have reading difficulties, the audio option reads the question and answer choices (see
Hoffman et al., 2019 for further details). Although the QoL-CI may also be administered via
the traditional “paper and pencil” method, it would not allow for automatic scoring of the
QoL-CI and domain scales.

Limitations
The primary limitations of this study are related to the heterogeneity of the CI population.
Although efforts were made to recruit children that use different forms of communication,

Ear Hear. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2022 July 01.

 Cejas et al. Page 15

most of the sample used spoken communication. Eleven percent of children who participated
Author Manuscript

in the adolescent open-ended or cognitive interviews utilized sign language. Importantly,

children who used sign language did not respond differently to any of the items than
children who used spoken language and reported that all items were appropriate and
captured their functional ability. Given the location of our CI clinic, there was a high
percentage of Hispanic participants and a small number of Black participants; thus, not
representing the general US population. The validation of the QoL-CI should include
representation of all race and ethnicity groups. Another potential limitation is that the
data were obtained from two highly specialized pediatric CI centers with access to a
multidisciplinary team. Other families may not have this same access, and thus, their
perspectives may be different. It will be important to include a more representative sample
in the psychometric validation to ensure that these measures can be used across the United
States.
Author Manuscript

Clinical Implications & Future Directions

In accordance with the FDA guidance on patient reported outcomes (2009), the next step
is to conduct a multisite psychometric validation with a large sample of pediatric CI users.
Once these measures have been validated, they can be translated into other languages (e.g.,
Spanish, French). This will allow for comparison of outcomes across centers, treatment
philosophies, and countries. Once validated, these measures can also be utilized in future
research to compare quality of life across etiologies (i.e., genetic loss vs. sudden onset),
degree of hearing loss, one vs two implants, or other audiological or medical variables.
This is critical as CI candidacy continues to change, with new, expanded criteria. The QoL-
CI may be used to help evaluate any changes in intervention or programming strategies.
Using patient reported outcomes, in addition to objective measures of speech understanding
Author Manuscript

and audiological performance, will be critical for informing future decisions on cochlear
implantation.

Moreover, given that the QOL-CI evaluates the entire pediatric age range, this measure
can potentially be utilized to identify predictors of success and adaptation while examining
HRQoL over time. Once the psychometric validation of the QoL-CI is conducted, CI centers
can administer these tools annually to identify those at-risk, target interventions to those
in need, and track patient outcomes. Early identification of areas of concern is crucial
in preventing long-term disorders. For example, even adolescents who are performing
well audiologically, may struggle with accepting their hearing loss, and may benefit
from supportive counseling to prevent depression or anxiety in the future. Quality of life
assessment is an easy, cost-effective, and non-intrusive way to obtain a global picture of how
an individual is feeling and functioning in daily life.
Author Manuscript

Upon completion of the psychometric validation, the QoL-CI will be a valuable clinical and
research measure that may be used to further evaluate the effects of language abilities and
hearing and audiology history on quality of life. Our study included children with varying
language abilities to ensure that questions on the QoL-CI were appropriate for CI users that
primarily used spoken communication, as well as American Sign Language. However, a
multisite psychometric validation study including a large sample of CI users with varying

Ear Hear. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2022 July 01.

 Cejas et al. Page 16

medical and audiological backgrounds and communication modes is warranted prior to

Author Manuscript

wide adoption of these QoL-CI instruments. The psychometric study will provide further
information related to the internal consistency and reliability of the scales developed during
this study, as well as validation of the instruments against currently available quality of life
instruments and objective audiological measures (e.g., speech perception). This study may
also yield normative data for CI users with varying communication skills.

In conclusion, the QoL-CI is a condition-specific quality of life instrument that can be used
for children ages birth through 22. The QoL-CI self-report and parent proxy versions can
be administered electronically for easy administration in clinical settings, with immediate
scoring that facilitates review of results with patients and their parents. Utilization of QOL
instruments as part of medical treatment supports current recommendations for providing
patient-centered, collaborative care.
Author Manuscript

Supplementary Material
Refer to Web version on PubMed Central for supplementary material.

Acknowledgements:
All authors contributed significantly to this work. IC and ALQ designed the study, conducted the interviews, coded
the transcripts and wrote the paper. CS conducted interviews at both sites, coded and trained team on NVivo
coding, entered data, and participated in manuscript preparation. JC conducted statistical analysis and manuscript
preparation, including preparing Supplementary Digital Content. CSM assisted with development of discussion
guides, collected and reviewed audiological data, and participated in manuscript preparation. All authors discussed
the results and implications and commented on the manuscript at all stages.

References
Author Manuscript

Archbold SM, Lutman ME, Gregory S, O’Neill C, & Nikolopoulos TP (2002). Parents and their deaf
child: Their perceptions three year period. Deafness & Education International, 4(1), 12–40. doi:
10.1179/146431502790560962.
Beadle EA, Shores A, & Wood E 2000; Parental perceptions of the impact upon the family of cochlear
implantation in children. The Annals of Otology, Rhinology, Laryngology: Supplement, (185), 111–
114. doi: 10.1177/0003489400109s1248
Bujang MA, Adnan TH, Hatta NKBM, Ismail M, & Lim CJ (2018). A revised version of Diabetes
Quality of Life Instrument maintaining domains for satisfaction, impact and worry. Journal of
Diabetes Research, 2018. doi: 10.1155/2018/5804687
Cejas I, Quittner AL (2018). Effects of Family Variables on Spoken Language in Children with
Cochlear Implants. In Knoors H, Marschark M (Eds). Evidence-Based Practices in Deaf Education
(pp. 111–128). Oxford University Press.
Center for Disease Control and Prevention. (2020, June 15). National Center for Health Statistics:
Healthy People 2020. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/healthy_people/hp2020.htm
Author Manuscript

Centers for Medicine & Medicaid Services (CMS) (2016, May 2). CMS Quality Measure
Development Plan: Supporting the Transition to the Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS)
and Alternative Payment Models (APMs). https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Quality-Initiatives-
Patient-Assessment-Instruments/Value-Based-Programs/MACRA-MIPS-and-APMs/Final-MDP.pdf
Cheng AK, Rubin HR, Powe NR, Mellon NK, Francis HW, & Niparko JK (2000). Cost-utility
analysis of the cochlear implant in children. JAMA, 284(7), 850–856. doi: 10.1001/jama.284.7.850.
[PubMed: 10938174]

Ear Hear. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2022 July 01.

 Cejas et al. Page 17

Chmiel R, Sutton L, & Jenkins H (2000). Quality of Life in Children with Cochlear
Implants. The Annals of Otology, Rhinology & Laryngolgy: Supplement, 185, 103–105. doi:
Author Manuscript

10.1177/0003489400109s1245.
Crosby RD, Kolotkin RL, & Williams GR (2003). Defining clinically meaningful change in
health-related quality of life. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 56(5), 395–407. doi: 10.1016/
s0895-4356(03)00044-1 [PubMed: 12812812]
Cruz [Cejas] I, & Quittner AL (2009). Utilizing health-related quality of life measures in children with
respiratory conditions. In Langston C, Rogers BB, Dimmick JE, & Singer DB (Eds). Perspectives
in Pediatric Pathology: Advances in Pediatric Pulmonary Pathology Small Lungs-Big Ideas, Vol
27 (pp. 266–284). Society for Pediatric Pathology.
DeSalvo KB, Bloser N, Reynolds K, He J, Muntner P (2006). Mortality prediction with a single
general self-rated health question: A meta-analysis. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 21(3),
267–275. doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2005.00291.x [PubMed: 16336622]
European Medicines Agency. (2005). Reflection paper on the regulatory guidance for the use of
health-related quality of life (HRQL) measures in the evaluation of medicinal products. European
Medicines Agency.
Author Manuscript

Fayers P & Bottomley A (on behalf of EORTC Quality of Life Group; Quality of Life Unit) (2002).
Quality of life research within the EORTC- the EORTC QLQ – C30. European Organization for
Research and Treatment of Cancer. European Journal of Cancer, 38(Supplement 4), S125–33. doi:
10.1016/s0959-8049(01)00448-8 [PubMed: 11858978]
Food and Drug Administration. (2009). Guidance for Industry: Patient-Reported Outcome Measures:
Use in Medical Product Development to Support Labeling Claims. www.fda.gov/downloads/
Drugs/Guidances/UCM193282.pdf
Garratt A, Schmidt L, Mackintosh A & Fitzpatrick R (2002). Quality of life measurement:
Bibliographic study of patient assessed health outcome measures. British Medical Journal,
324(7351), 1417. doi: 10.1136/bmj.324.7351.1417 [PubMed: 12065262]
Harris M & Terleksi E (2011). Reading and spelling abilities of deaf adolescents with cochlear
implants and hearing aids. Journal of Dead Studies and Deaf Education, 16(1), 24–34. doi:
10.1093/deafed/enq031
Haukedal CL, Torkildsen J.V.K.m Lyxell B, & Wie OB (2018). Parents’ perception of health-
related quality of life in children with cochlear implants: The impact of language skills
Author Manuscript

and hearing. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 61(8), 2084–2098. doi:
10.1044/2018_JSLHR-H-17-0278.
Hays R (2005). Developing and evaluating questionnaires. In: Fayers P & Hays R (Eds.), Assessing
Quality of Life in Clinical Trials (pp. 3–8). Oxford University Press.
Higginson IJ & Carr AJ (2001). Using quality of life measures in the clinical setting. British Medical
Journal, 322(7297), 1297–1300. doi: 10.1136/bmj.322.7297.1297. [PubMed: 11375237]
Hoffman MF, Cejas I, & Quittner AL (2016). Comparisons of longitudinal trajectories of social
competence: Parent ratings of children with cochlear implants versus hearing peers. Otology &
Neurotology, 37, 153–159. doi: 10.1097/MAO.0000000000000938
Hoffman MF, Cejas I, & Quittner AL (2019). Health-related quality of life instruments for children
with cochlear implants: Development of child and parent-proxy Measures. Ear and Hearing, 40(3),
592–604. doi:10.1097/AUD.0000000000000631. [PubMed: 30059365]
Huber M (2005). Health-related quality of life of Austrian children and adolescents with cochlear
implants. International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, 69(8), 1089–1101. doi: 10.1016/
Author Manuscript

j.ijporl.2005.02.018. [PubMed: 15946746]

Jorgensen LA, Benson EA, & McCreery RW (2018). Conventional amplification for children and
adults with severe-to-profound hearing loss. Seminars in Hearing, 39(4), 364–376. doi: 10.1055/
s-0038-1670699. [PubMed: 30374208]
Juniper EF, Guyatt GH, Epstein RS, Ferrie PJ, Jaeschke R, Hiller TK (1992). Evaluation of impairment
of health-related quality of life in asthma: development of a questionnaire for use in clinical trials.
Thorax, 47(2), 76–83. doi: 10.1136/thx.47.2.76. [PubMed: 1549827]

Ear Hear. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2022 July 01.

 Cejas et al. Page 18

Krabbe PF, Hinderink JB, & Broek PVD (2000). The effect of cochlear implant use in postlingually
deaf adults. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 16(03), 864–873. doi:
Author Manuscript

10.1017/s0266462300102132. [PubMed: 11028141]

McRackan TR, Hand BN, Velozo CA, & Dubno JR (2019). Cochlear implant quality of life
(CIQOL): Development of a profile instrument (CIQOL-35 Profile) and a global measure
(CIQOL-10). Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 62(9), 2554–3563. doi:
10.1044/2019_JSLHR-H-19-0142.
Meserole RL, Carson CM, Riley AW, Wang NY, Quittner AL, Eisenberg LS, Tobey EA, Francis HW,
& Niparko JK (2014). Assessment of health-related quality of life 6 years after childhood cochlear
implantation. Quality of Life Research, 23(2), 719–731. doi: 10.1007/s11136-013-0509-3.
[PubMed: 23975382]
Morettin M, Dias dos Santos MJ, Stefanini MR, Antonio FL, Bevilacqua MC, & Cardoso MRA
(2013). Measures of quality of life in children with cochlear implant: Systematic review. Brazilian
Journal of Otorhinolaryngolgy, 79(3), 382–290. doi: 10.5935/1808-8694.20130066.
Niparko JK, Tobey EA, Thal DJ, Eisenberg LS, Wang NY, Quittner AL, Fink NE, & the
CDaCI Investigative Team. (2010). Spoken language development in children following cochlear
Author Manuscript

implantation. JAMA, 303(15), 1498–1506. [PubMed: 20407059]

Nunes T, Pretzlik U, Ilicak S (2005). Validation of a parent outcome questionnaire from pediatric
cochlear implantation. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 10(4), 330–356. DOI:
10.1093/deafed/eni027. [PubMed: 15932922]
Palermo TM, Long AC, Lewandowski AS, Drotar D, Quittner AL, & Walker LS (2008).
Evidence-based assessment of health-related quality of life and functional impairment in
pediatric psychology. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 33(9):983–996. doi: 10.1093/jpepsy/jsn038
[PubMed: 18430762]
Punch R & Hyde M (2011). Social participation of children and adolescents with cochlear implants:
A qualitative analysis of parent, teacher, and child interviews. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf
Education, 16(4), 474–493. doi: 10.1093/deafed/enr001 [PubMed: 21372111]
Quittner AL, Cejas I, Barnard J, & Niparko JK (2016). Benefits of cochlear implantation on the whole
child: Longitudinal changes in cognition, behavior, parenting, and health-related quality of life. In
Young N & Iler Kirk L (Eds) Pediatric Cochlear Implantation. Springer.
Quittner AL, Buu A, Messer MA, Modi AC & Watrous M (2005). Development and validation of
Author Manuscript

the Cystic Fibrosis Questionnaire in the United States: a health-related quality-of-life measure for
cystic fibrosis. Chest, 128(4): 2347–54. doi: 10.1378/chest.128.4.2347. [PubMed: 16236893]
Quittner AL, Sawicki GS, McMullen A, Rasouliyan L, Pasta DJ, Yegin A, & Konstan MW (2012).
Psychometric evaluation of the Cystic Fibrosis Questionnaire-Revised in a national sample.
Quality of Life Research, 21(7):1267–78. doi: 10.1007/s11136-011-0036-z. [PubMed: 21993695]
Quittner AL, Cruz [Cejas] I, Modi AC, & Maricel KK Health-related quality of life instruments
for adolescents with chronic diseases (2009). In T Donohue W (Ed.) Behavioral Approaches to
Chronic Disease in Adolescence: A Guide to Integrative Care (pp. 311–327). Springer.
Quittner AL, Cruz [Cejas] I, & Blackwell LS (2013). Advances in the measurement and utilization
of health-related quality of life instruments. In O’Donohue WT, Benuto LT, & Woodward Tolle L
(Eds). Handbook of Adolescent Health Psychology (pp. 153–163), Springer Publications.
Ravens-Sieberer U & Bullinger M (1998). Assessing health-related quality of life in chronically ill
children with the German KINDL: First psychometric and content analytical results. Quality of
Life Research, 7(5), 399–407. doi: 10.1023/a:1008853819715. [PubMed: 9691720]
Author Manuscript

Rich S, Levinger M, Werner S, & Adelman C (2013) Being an adolescent with a cochlear implant
in the world of hearing people: Coping in school, in society and with self identity. International
Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, 77(8), 1337–1344. doi: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2013.05.029
[PubMed: 23800472]
Rothman ML, Beltran P, Cappelleri JC, Lipscomb J, Teschendorf B, the Mayo/FDA Patient-Reported
Outcomes Consensus Meeting Group. (2007). Patient-reported outcomes: Conceptual issues. Value
in Health, 10, S66–S75. [PubMed: 17995476]
Sawicki GS, Rasouliyan L, McMullen AH, Wagener JS, McColley SA, Pasta DJ, & Quittner AL
(2011). Longitudinal assessment of health-related quality of life in an observational cohort of

Ear Hear. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2022 July 01.

 Cejas et al. Page 19

patients with Cystic Fibrosis. Pediatric Pulmonology, 46(1), 36–44. doi: 10.1002/ppul.21325.
[PubMed: 20848580]
Author Manuscript

Siddiqui OI (2015). Methods for computing missing item response in psychometric scale construction.
American Journal of Biostatistics, 5(1), 1.
Theunissen SCPM, Rieffe C, Kouwenberg M, Raeve LD, Soede W, Briaire JJ, & Frijns JHM (2012).
Anxiety in children with hearing aids or cochlear implants compared to normally hearing controls.
Laryngoscope, 122(3), 654–659. doi: 10.1002/lary.22502 [PubMed: 22252674]
Tomblin JB, Spencer L, Flock S, Tyler R, & Gantz B (1999). A comparison of language achievement
in children with cochlear implants and children using hearing aids. Journal of Speech Language
and Hearing Research, 42(2), 497–511. doi: 10.1044/jslhr.4202.497.
Uhler K, Warner-Czyz A, Gifford R & Group PMSTB. (2017). Pediatric Minimum Speech Test
Battery. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology. 28. 232–247. 10.3766/jaaa.15123.
[PubMed: 28277214]
Umansky AM, Jeffe DB, Lieu JE (2011). The HEAR-QL: Quality of life questionnaire for children
with hearing loss. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 22(10), 644–653. doi: 10.3766/
jaaa.22.10.3. [PubMed: 22212764]
Author Manuscript

Varni JW, Seid M, Kurtin PS (2001). PedsQL 4.0: Reliability and validity of the Pediatric Quality of
Life Inventory Version 4.0 generic core scales in healthy and patient populations. Medical Care,
39(8), 800–812. doi: 10.1097/00005650-200108000-00006. [PubMed: 11468499]
Viera AJ, Garret JM (2005). Understanding interobserver agreement: The kappa statistic. Family
Medicine, 37(5), 360–363. [PubMed: 15883903]
Warner-Czyz AD, Loy B, Roland PS, Tong L, & Tobey EA (2009). Parent versus child assessment
of quality of life in children using cochlear implants. International Journal of Pediatric
Otorhinolaryngology, 73(10), 1423–1429. doi: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2009.07.009. [PubMed: 19674798]
Wiebe S, Guyatt G, Weaver B, Matijevic S, Sidwell C (2003). Comparative responsiveness of generic
and specific quality-of-life instruments. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 56(1), 52–60. doi:
10.1016/S0895-4356(02)00537-1. [PubMed: 12589870]
Wieffferink CH, Rieffe C, Ketelaar L, & Frijns JHM (2012). Predicting social functioning
in children with a cochlear implant and in normal-hearing children: the role of emotion
regulation. International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinlaryngology, 76(6), 883–900. doi: 10.1016/
j.ijporl.2012.02.065
Author Manuscript

World Health Organization [WHO] (1947). Constitution of the World Health Organization. Chronicle
of the World Health Organization, 1(1–2), 29–43. [PubMed: 20267861]
Zaidman-Zait A, & Young RA (2008). Parental involvement in the habilitation process following
children’s cochlear implantation: An action theory perspective. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf
Education, 13(2), 193–214. doi: 10.1093/deafed/enm051. [PubMed: 17959614]
Author Manuscript

Ear Hear. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2022 July 01.

 Cejas et al. Page 20

Table 1.

CI Specific QoL Measures

Author Manuscript

Age Respondent Domains

Children with Cochlear Implants: Parental Childhood: Parent Report Communication, General Functioning, Self-
Perspectives measure (CCIP; Archbold et implanted by 2 Reliance, Well-Being and Happiness, Social
al. 2002) years, deafened by Relationships, Process of Implantation, Education,
Validated Version: Parent Views and 3 Effects of Implantation, Decision to Implant, and
Experiences with Pediatric Cochlear 5–16 Supporting the Child
Implantation Questionnaire (PEVCIQ;
Nunes et al., 2005)
The Children’s Quality of Life 3–20 Parent Report Benefits, Problems
Questionnaire (Chmiel et al. 2000)
Quality of Life- Cochlear Implant (QoL- 6–12 Self-Report and Self-Report: Academic Functioning, Child
CI) (Hoffman et al. 2019) Parent Report Acceptance, Device Management, Emotional
Functioning, Fatigue, Noisy Environments, Oral
Communication, and Social Functioning
Parent Report: Same domains as self-report with
addition of Behavioral Problems
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Ear Hear. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2022 July 01.

 Cejas et al. Page 21

Table 2.

Sample Characteristics for Stakeholders

Author Manuscript

Sample Characteristics Early Childhood Adolescent/Young Adult

n = 23 n = 16
Age:
N (%) 21–30 5 (22%) 4 (25%)
N (%) 31–40 8 (35%) 4 (25%)
N (%) 41–50 4 (17%) 5 (31%)
N (%) 51–60 5 (22%) 2 (13%)
N (%) 61–70 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
N (%) Above 71 0 (0%) 1 (6%)
Sex: N (%) female 20 (87%) 4 (88%)
Race
N (%) White 20 (87%) 15 94%)
Author Manuscript

N (%) Black 0 (0%) 0 (0%)

N (%) Asian 2 (9%) 1 (6%)
N (%) Native Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
N (%) Biracial 1 (4%) 0 (0%)
Ethnicity
N (%) Hispanic/Latino 10 (43%) 2 (13%)
N (%) Not Hispanic/Latino 13 (57%) 14 (88%)
Education:
N (%) Highschool Diploma/GED 3 (13%) 0 (0%)
N (%) Bachelors 4 (17%) 1 (6%)
N (%) Masters 7 (30%) 4 (25%)
N (%) MD 3 (13%) 1 (6%)
Author Manuscript

N (%) Doctorate 6 (26%) 10 (63%)

Site:
N (%) University of Miami 14 (61%) 9 (56%)
N (%) Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia 0 (0%) 7 (44%)
1 9 (39%) 0 (0%)
N (%) Debbie School (Auditory/Oral Preschool)
Profession:
N (%) Audiologist 8 (35%) 10 (63%)
N (%) Speech & Language Pathologist 5 (22%) 2 (13%)
N (%) Physician 3 (13%) 1 (6%)
N (%) Educator for the Deaf 3 (26%) 2 (13%)
N (%) Social Worker 0 (0%) 1 (6%)
N (%) Other 1 (4%) 0 (0%)
Author Manuscript

Years in Practice:
N (%) < 1 year 2 (9%) 0 (0%)
N (%) 1–2 years 1 (4%) 2 (13%)
N (%) 3–5 years 6 (26%) 3 (19%)

Ear Hear. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2022 July 01.

 Cejas et al. Page 22

Sample Characteristics Early Childhood Adolescent/Young Adult

n = 23 n = 16
N (%) 5–10 years 8 (35%) 3 (19%)
Author Manuscript

N (%) 10+ years 6 (26%) 8 (50%)

1
The Debbie School is an early intervention and auditory-oral program that focuses on listening and spoken language development in deaf and hard
of hearing children. This program provides early intervention and educational services for children who are deaf or hard of hearing ages birth to
nine. Services include early and primary education.
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Ear Hear. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2022 July 01.

 Cejas et al. Page 23

Table 3.

Sample Characteristics for Children and Adolescents Enrolled in Open-Ended Interviews and Cognitive
Author Manuscript

Testing

Sample Characteristics Open-Ended Interviews Cognitive Testing

Early Childhood Adolescent/ Young Early Childhood Adolescent/ Young

Adult Adult
Age: M (SD) 4.29 (1.29) years 17.06 (3.17) years 3.46 (1.36) years 17.05 (3.03) years
Sex: N (%) female 9 (47.4%) 9 (52.9%) 7 (36.8%) 9 (47.4%)
Race:
N (%) White 14 (73.7%) 16 (94.1%) 12 (63.2%) 15 (78.9%)
N (%) Black 3 (15.8%) 0 (0%) 2 (10.5%) 0 (0%)
N (%) Asian 0 (0%) 1 (5.9%) 3 (15.8%) 2 (10.5%)
N (%) Native Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander 1 (5.3%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
N (%) Biracial 1 (5.3%) 0 (0%) 2 (10.5%) 2 (10.5%)
Author Manuscript

Ethnicity
N (%) Hispanic/Latino 4 (21.1%) 5 (29.4%) 5 (26.3%) 3 (15.8%)
N (%) Not Hispanic/Latino 15 (78.9%) 12 (70.6%) 14 (73.7%) 16 (84.2%)
Insurance:
N (%) Uninsured 0 (0%) 1 (9.1%) 0 (0%) 2 (16.7%)
N (%) Medicaid 10 (52.6%) 5 (45.5%) 9 (47.4%) 3 (25.0%)
N (%) Private 9 (47.4%) 5 (45.5%) 10 (52.6%) 7 (58.3%)
Onset type:
N (%) Sudden 2 (10.5%) 3 (21.4%) 1 (7.1%) 1 (5.3%)
N (%) Progressive 2 (10.5%) 4 (28.6%) 1 (7.1%) 7 (36.8%)
N (%) Congenital 15 (78.9%) 7 (50.0%) 12 (85.7%) 11 (57.9%)
Device:
Author Manuscript

N (%) Unilateral 1 (5.3%) 6 (35.3%) 2 (12.5%) 7 (36.8%)

N (%) Bimodal 2 (10.5%) 1 (5.9%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
N (%) Bilateral 16 (84.2%) 10 (58.8%) 14 (87.5%) 12 (63.2%)
Age at First Implantation
N (%) < 1 Year Old 3 (15.8%) 0 (0%) 2 (11.1%) 0 (0%)
N (%) 1–2 Years Old 10 (52.6%) 3 (17.6%) 11 (61.1%) 4 (21.1%)
N (%) 2–3 Years Old 2 (10.5%) 1 (5.9%) 1 (5.6%) 5 (26.3%)
N (%) 3–4 Years Old 1 (5.3%) 3 (17.6%) 4 (22.2%) 2 (10.5%)
N (%) 4–5 Years Old 1 (5.3%) 1 (5.9%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
N (%) 5–7 Years Old 2 (10.5%) 4 (23.5%) 0 (0%) 1 (5.3%)
N (%) > 7 Years Old 0 (0%) 5 (29.4%) 0 (0%) 7 (36.8%)
Duration of Cochlear Implantation
Author Manuscript

N (%) 0–6 Months 2 (10.5%) 0 (0%) 5 (27.8%) 0 (0%)

N (%) 6–12 Months 2 (10.5%) 0 (0%) 2 (11.1%) 0 (0%)
N (%) 1– 2 Years 5 (26.3%) 0 (0%) 5 (27.8%) 0 (0%)
N (%) 2–3 Years 3 (15.8%) 1 (5.9%) 4 (22.2%) 0 (0%)
N (%) 3–4 Years 6 (31.6%) 0 (0%) 1 (5.6%) 3 (15.8%)

Ear Hear. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2022 July 01.

 Cejas et al. Page 24

Sample Characteristics Open-Ended Interviews Cognitive Testing

Early Childhood Adolescent/ Young Early Childhood Adolescent/ Young

Author Manuscript

Adult Adult
N (%) 4–5 Years 1 (5.3%) 1 (5.9%) 1 (5.6%) 0 (0%)
N (%) 5–10 Years 0 (0%) 3 (17.6%) 0 (0%) 5 (26.3%)
N (%) >10 Years 0 (0%) 12 (70.6%) 0 (0%) 11 (57.9%)
School Setting:
1 3 (20.0%) 11 (64.7%) 5 (29.4%) 15 (78.9%)
N (%) Mainstream
2 2 (13.3%) 2 (11.8%) 0 (0%) 2 (10.5%)
N (%) Mainstream+pullout
3 7 (46.7%) 0 (0%) 4 (23.5%) 0 (0%)
N (%) Auditory oral classroom
4 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (5.9%) 0 (0%)
N (%) Special education classroom
5 0 (0%) 1 (5.9%) 4 (23.5%) 0 (0%)
N (%) Total communication classroom
6 3 (20.0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (10.5%)
N (%) School for the Deaf
Author Manuscript

Child grade:
N (%) Daycare 2 (11.8%) - 2 (12.5%) -
N (%) Preschool 2 (11.8%) - 8 (50.0%) -
N (%) Pre-Kindergarten 10 (58.8%) - 5 (31.3%) -
N (%) Kindergarten 3 (17.6%) - 1 (6.3%) -
N (%) Middle school - 4 (23.5%) - 4 (23.5%)
N (%) High school - 11 (64.7%) - 13 (76.5%)
N (%) College - 2 (11.8%) - 0 (0%)

1.
General education classroom;
2.
General education classroom where the student is pulled out to receive support or intervention;
3.
Author Manuscript

A classroom for children with hearing loss taught by a teacher of the deaf and hard of hearing focusing on listening and spoken language
development;
4.
Self-contained classroom for children with various special needs;
5.
Deaf and hard of hearing classroom where teachers utilize both listening and spoken language and American Sign Language;
6.
School for students who are deaf and/or hard of hearing
Author Manuscript

Ear Hear. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2022 July 01.

 Cejas et al. Page 25

Table 4.

Sample Characteristics for Parents Enrolled in Open-Ended Interviews and Cognitive Testing
Author Manuscript

Sample Characteristics Open-Ended Interviews Cognitive Testing

Early Childhood Adolescent/ Young Adult Early Childhood Adolescent/ Young Adult
Relationship to child
N (%) Mother 17 (89.5%) 6 (46.2%) 15 (78.9%) 6 (40%)
N (%) Father 2 (10.5%) 5 (38.5%) 4 (21.1%) 1 (6.7%)
N (%) Grandparent 0 (0%) 1 (7.7%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
N (%) Self 0 (0%) 1 (7.7%) 0 (0%) 8 (53.3%)
Age:
N (%) 20–29 1 (5.3%) 1 (7.7%) 8 (42.1%) 2 (22.2%)
N (%) 30–39 13 (68.4%) 1 (7.7%) 8 (42.1%) 1 (11.1%)
N (%) 40–49 4 (21.1%) 6 (46.2%) 3 (15.8%) 5 (55.6%)
Author Manuscript

N (%) 50–59 0 (0%) 3 (23.1%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)

N (%) 60–69 1 (5.3%) 2 (15.4%) 0 (0%) 1 (11.1%)
Race:
N (%) White 14 (52.6%) 12 (38.5%) 13 (42.1%) 9 (72.7%)
N (%) Black 3 (15.8%) 0 (0%) 2 (10.5%) 0 (0%)
N (%) Asian 0 (0%) 1 (7.7%) 3 (15.8%) 1 (9.1%)
N (%) Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
N (%) Biracial 2 (10.5%) 0 (0%) 1 (5.3%) 1 (9.1%)
Ethnicity
N (%) Hispanic/Latino 4 (21.1%) 7 (53.9%) 5 (26.3%) 1 (9.1%)
N (%) Not Hispanic/Latino 15 (78.9%) 6 (46.2%) 14 (73.7%) 11 (90.1%)
Education:
Author Manuscript

N (%) Less than high school 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (5.3%) 1 (12.5%)

N (%) Complete high school 2 (10.5%) 2 (15.4%) 3 (15.8%) 0 (0%)
N (%) Some college 1 (5.3%) 4 (30.8%) 1 (5.3%) 0 (0%)
N (%) Associates degree 4 (21.1%) 0 (0%) 4 (21.1%) 1 (12.5%)
N (%) Completed college 9 (47.4%) 6 (46.2%) 6 (31.6%) 3 (37.5%)
N (%) Graduate school or higher 3 (15.8%) 1 (7.7%) 4 (21.1%) 3 (37.5%)
Income:
N (%) Less than $15,000 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (10.5%) 0 (0%)
N (%) $15,000–29,999 1 (5.3%) 2 (16.7%) 2 (10.5%) 2 (16.7%)
N (%) $30,000–49,999 5 (26.3%) 2 (16.7%) 4 (21.1%) 0 (0%)
N (%) $50,000–74,999 0 (0%) 2 (16.7%) 4 (21.1%) 0 (0%)
N (%) $75,000–100,000 3 (15.8%) 1 (8.3%) 3 (15.8%) 2 (16.7%)
Author Manuscript

N (%) More than $100,000 6 (31.6%) 4 (33.3%) 3 (15.8%) 4 (33.3%)

N (%) Don’t know/Declined to answer 4 (21.0%) 1 (8.3%) 1 (5.3%) 4 (33.3%)
Primary language spoken at home:
N (%) English 18 (94.7%) 9 (69.2%) 14 (73.7%) 10 (90.9%)
N (%) Spanish 1 (5.3%) 4 (30.8%) 2 (10.5%) 1 (9.1%)

Ear Hear. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2022 July 01.

 Cejas et al. Page 26

Sample Characteristics Open-Ended Interviews Cognitive Testing

Early Childhood Adolescent/ Young Adult Early Childhood Adolescent/ Young Adult
Author Manuscript

N (%) Other 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3 (15.8%)

Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Ear Hear. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2022 July 01.

 Cejas et al. Page 27

Table 5.

Descriptive Statistics for QoL-CI domains

Author Manuscript

Mean SD Range
Early Childhood
Environmental Sounds 65.35 15.28 33.33 – 100
Communication 51.05 17.72 13.22 – 80
Social Functioning 54.21 14.11 26.67 – 75
Behavior 66.37 8.78 38.89 – 77.78
Device Management 64.04 19.28 33.33 – 88.89
School 77.63 18.01 25.00 – 100
CI Benefit 83.33 20.22 33.33 – 100
Early Intervention 64.47 17.32 25.00 – 91.67

Adolescent/Young Adult
Author Manuscript

Noisy Environments 60.96 14.97 41.67 – 91.67

Communication 61.40 14.04 33.33 – 83.33
Device Management 71.05 15.99 37.50– 95.83
Advocacy 62.11 15.40 33.33 – 100
Social Functioning 66.23 17.51 29.17 – 91.67
Emotional Functioning 69.82 18.37 40 – 100
Acceptance 68.42 22.20 26.67 – 100
Independence 58.25 14.03 33.33 – 93.33
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Ear Hear. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2022 July 01.

 Cejas et al. Page 28

Table 6.

QoL-CI: Number of items and domain descriptions

Author Manuscript

Domain # of items Description

Early Childhood
Environmental Sounds 4 Difficulty hearing in different environments
Communication 8 Ability to vocalize
Social Functioning 4 Ability to socialize with others
Behavior 5 Frequency of difficult behavior
Device Management 4 Difficulties wearing CI
School 4 Frequency of problems at school
CI Benefit 3 Improvements in functioning
Early Intervention 3 Engagement in therapies

Adolescent/Young Adult
Author Manuscript

Noisy Environments 4 Difficulty hearing in loud environments

Communication 6 Ability to vocalize
Device Management 8 Difficulties wearing CI
Advocacy 5 Comfort speaking up for yourself
Social Functioning 8 Ability to socialize with others
Emotional Functioning 5 Frequency of negative emotions
Acceptance 5 Difficulty fitting in
Independence 5 Frequency of relying on others for help
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Ear Hear. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2022 July 01.