ArticleActa otorhinolaryngologica Italica : organo ufficiale della Societa italiana di otorinolaringologia e chirurgia cervico-facciale2025
Italian adaptation of Listening Effort Assessment Scale and Fatigue Assessment Scale questionnaires.
Article in Acta otorhinolaryngologica Italica : organo ufficiale della Societa italiana di otorinolaringologia e chirurgia cervico-facciale, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The purpose of this study is to adapt linguistically and culturally the Listening Effort Assessment Scale (EAS) and Fatigue Assessment Scale (FAS) questionnaires into Italian (EAS-IT and FAS-IT) and to investigate the reliability and validity of these scales in normal hearing and hearing-impaired subjects. Methods: The Italian adaptation of the EAS and FAS questionnaires was conducted based on back and forward translation methodology. Both questionnaires were administered to 101 normal hearing (NH) subjects and 88 hearing-impaired subjects including 19 hearing aid users (HA), 50 cochlear implant users (CI) and 19 affected by single-sided deafness (SSD). Results: Both questionnaires showed a high reliability (Cronbach's α was 0.953 for EAS-IT and 0.837 for FAS-IT). EAS-IT showed high internal consistency with item-rest correlations. The inter-item correlation of the FAS-IT shows a difference in the internal consistency of item 4. A high significance between the NH group and the 3 hearing loss groups (HA, CI, SSD) was found for EAS-IT, but no significant difference was found between NH and the single hearing-impaired groups for FAS-IT. Conclusions: EAS-IT showed good internal reliability and validity and is sensitive to hearing loss.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.