ArticleHNO2024
[Development of a German short version of the Nijmegen Cochlear Implant Questionnaire].
Article in HNO, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Nijmegen Cochlear Implant Questionnaire (NCIQ) is a questionnaire for assessing hearing-specific quality of life in the context of cochlear implantation. Its length (60 items) makes it difficult to use in clinical practice, so a short version is desirable. The question arises as to which items should be selected for the short version.
methodsThe items were selected statistically using uncorrected item-total score correlation. Item selection was made based on datasets from three measurement points: before implantation and 3 and 12 months after processor activation. The items were selected according to the criterion that they were among the 40 items with the highest item-total score correlation at each of the three measurement points.
resultsOf the 60 items in the NCIQ, 25 met the criterion and were hence included in the short version. The short version yields similar scores as the long version at the postoperative timepoints; however, at the preoperative timepoint, the agreement of the scores is suboptimal. Split-half reliability and internal homogeneity of the short version are very good.
conclusionThe present study constitutes an initial positive evaluation of a short form of the NCIQ in terms of standard psychometric criteria. Application of the short form is associated with significantly reduced resources in terms of processing and evaluating.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38424382What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.