Observational studyHealth and quality of life outcomes2026
Living with Cochlear Implants (LivCI): development and validation of a new patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) of personal factors associated with living with cochlear implants.
Observational study in Health and quality of life outcomes, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is a paucity of research that considers personal factors that have recently been shown to be important to those who use cochlear implants (CI). This study aimed to develop the Living with Cochlear Implants (LivCI) questionnaire, a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) of personal factors important to living with cochlear implants, and evaluate its psychometric properties using Rasch and classical test theory (CTT) analyses.
methodsMulti-phase, prospective observational design. CI candidates and recipients (n = 267) completed a 54-item draft LivCI. The item pool was assessed for Rasch model fit, including overall scale and item fit, local dependency, rating scale functioning, differential item functioning (DIF), reliability and unidimensionality. Results guided iterative refinements to produce a definitive LivCI. LivCI scales were evaluated in a second sample (n = 145) using CTT for internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's alpha) and criterion and construct validity. A hypothesis testing approach, comparing LivCI scores with participants' scores on five comparator PROMs, was used.
resultsWe constructed a 22-item version of the LivCI comprising four unidimensional subscales: (1) function and participation; 2) psychosocial and wellbeing; 3) stigma; and 4) device aesthetics and management. Scales represented domains of a co-developed conceptual framework. All met the Rasch model requirements of fit, unidimensionality, local item independence and item invariance for age and gender (DIF), except the Device Aesthetics and Management scale with one dependent item pair. A 4-point response category structure was adopted to address threshold disordering. Person separation reliability (range = 0.57 to 0.85) and internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's [Formula: see text] = 0.64 to 0.94) were acceptable with exception of the Device Aesthetics and Management Scale. The LivCI was highly correlated (r > 0.6) with PROMs considered to measure similar constructs, sufficient evidence of criterion validity (Pearson correlation value range = 0.62 to 0.75, 100% of a priori hypotheses met). Construct validity was partially supported with 54% (15/28) of predefined hypotheses confirmed.
conclusionsThe 22-item LivCI, comprising four standalone scales, met Rasch model requirements for unidimensionality, invariance, local independence and item fit. With further validation, the LivCI has potential for implementation in routine care and as a research tool. (350 words).
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.