ArticlePloS one2025
Translation of Chinese version of the measure of audiologic rehabilitation self-efficacy for hearing aids and the self-efficacy among hearing aid users in China: Application of the questionnaire.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07690670 (A WhatsApp-Delivered AI-Enabled Support Programme Versus Paper-Based Support for First-Time Hearing Aid Users in Low-Resource Communities), which is not on this 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.
A WhatsApp-Delivered AI-Enabled Support Programme Versus Paper-Based Support for First-Time Hearing Aid Users in Low-Resource Communities: A Randomized Controlled Trial
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the Measure of Audiologic Rehabilitation Self-Efficacy for Hearing Aids (C-MARS-HA) and to analyze self-efficacy of Chinese hearing aid users.
designThe Brislin translation model was strictly adopted to modify the C-MARS-HA. Participants included 134 hearing aid users aged 20-98. Hearing aid users were surveyed through questionnaire interviews regarding self-efficacy and overall satisfaction with hearing aids. Reliability and validity of the questionnaires were analyzed. Descriptive statistical and correlation analyses were conducted on the total score and four factors of the C-MARS-HA and overall satisfaction.
resultsIn reliability analysis, Cronbach' s α, Spearman-Brown, and Guttman split-half coefficients of the overall and four factors were all greater than 0.6, indicating that C-MARS-HA has acceptable reliability. In validity analysis, C-MARS-HA consisted of 24 items across 4 factors (basic handling, aided listening, adjustment and advanced handling) and had acceptable content validity. Exploratory factor analysis yielded with a four-factor solution, explaining more than 40% of the total variance and the loading coefficient for each of the 24 items was above 0.4, indicating that C-MARS-HA had good construct validity. Average scores for basic handling and adjustment were at least 80%, whereas average scores for aided listening, advanced handling, and total scores were less than 80%. A total of 65.67% of users had an overall satisfaction rate of 80%. A significant positive correlation (p < 0.001) was found between the total score of the questionnaire, the scores of the four factors, and overall satisfaction.
conclusionsThe reliability and validity of the C-MARS-HA is acceptable. This questionnaire can be used for clinical evaluation of self-efficacy among Chinese hearing aid users.
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.