Validation of the Norwegian Version of the Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ).

INTRODUCTION: The main objective of the study was to validate the Norwegian translation of the Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ) and investigate the SSQ disability profiles in a cochlear implant (CI) user population. METHODS: The study involved 152 adult CI users. The mean age at implantation was 55 (standard deviation [SD] = 16), and the mean CI experience was 5 years (SD = 4.8). The cohort was split into three groups depending on the hearing modality: bilateral CIs (BCIs), a unilateral CI (UCI), and bimodal (CI plus contralateral hearing aid; HCI). The SSQ disability profiles of each group were compared with those observed in similar studies using the English version and other translations of the SSQ. Standard values, internal consistency, sensitivity, and floor and ceiling effects were investigated, and the missing-response rates to specific questions were calculated. Relationships to speech perception were measured using monosyllabic word scores and the Norwegian Hearing in Noise Test scores. RESULTS: In the BCI group, the average scores were around 5.0 for the speech and spatial sections and 7.0 for the qualities section (SD ∼2). The average scores of the UCI and HCI groups were about one point lower than those of the BCI group. The SSQ disability profiles were comparable to the profiles in similar studies. The slopes of the linear regression lines measuring the relationships between the SSQ speech and monosyllabic word scores were 0.8 per 10% increase in the monosyllabic word score for the BCI group (explaining 35% of the variation) and 0.4 for the UCI and HCI groups (explaining 22-23% of the variation). CONCLUSION: The Norwegian version of the SSQ measures hearing disability similar to the original English version, and the internal consistency is good. Differences in the recipients' pre-implantation variables could explain some variations we observed in the SSQ responses, and such predictors should be investigated. Data aggregation will be possible using the SSQ as a routine clinical assessment in global CI populations. Moreover, pre-implantation variables should be systematically registered so that they can be used in mixed-effects models.

Cochlear implantation in prelingually deafened patients: Evaluation in hearing, speech ability, and quality of life. / äººå·¥è€³èœ—æ¤å ¥æœ¯æé«˜è¯­å‰è‹æ‚£è€ å¬è§‰è¨€è¯­èƒ½åŠ›åŠç”Ÿæ´»è´¨é‡.

OBJECTIVES: The main purpose of cochlear implantation for prelingual deafness is to restore the deaf children's auditory function, obtain normal speech development, learning and social ability, and improve the quality of life. Previous studies mostly focused on the improvement of simple hearing or speech ability. This study aims to evaluate the changes of hearing and speech ability and family life quality of patients after cochlear implantation, and to explore the effect of cochlear implantation on hearing and speech rehabilitation of patients. METHODS: In February 2021, using the convenient sampling method, 171 patients who have completed cochlear implantation were selected from the database of cochlear implantation follow-up center of a class III Tertiary hospital in Hunan Province. Questionnaires were used to investigate the patients' parents, which were Categories of Auditory Performance (CAP), Speech/Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale-Parents' Version (SSQ-P), and Children using Hearing Implants Quality of Life (CuHI-QoL). T-test and analysis of variance were used to explore the postoperative auditory and speech ability of patients at different ages in different periods (<2.5-year group, 2.5-4.5-year group and >4.5-year group), and Pearson correlation analysis was used to explore the correlation. Multiple linear regression was used to explore the relationship between the dimension of patients' quality of life and the scores of scale for evaluating auditory ability (CAP, speech perception, spatial hearing, and other hearing characteristics). RESULTS: The values of CAP and SSQ-P in the <2.5-year group were lower than those in the 2.5-4.5-year and >4.5-year groups (all P<0.05). Pearson correlation analysis showed that postoperative years and CuHI-QoL scores (parental expectations and patients' quality of life) were positively correlated with score of CAP, SSQ-P and its dimension, respectively (all P<0.05). The results of multiple linear regression analysis showed the CAP scores and speech perception were the influencing factors for the quality of life (R2=0.170, P<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Two and a half years after operation is the rapid growth period of patients' hearing and language ability, and the growth rate becomes slow after stabilization. With the extension of postoperative years, the patients' hearing and speech ability becomes stronger, and the quality of life is better.

Hearing problems in patients with hereditary gelsolin amyloidosis.

BACKGROUND: Gelsolin amyloidosis (AGel amyloidosis) is a hereditary form of systemic amyloidosis featuring ophthalmological, neurological and cutaneous symptoms. Previous studies based mainly on patients' self-reporting have indicated that hearing impairment might also be related to the disease, considering the progressive cranial neuropathy characteristic for AGel amyloidosis. In order to deepen the knowledge of possible AGel amyloidosis-related hearing problems, a clinical study consisting of the Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ) questionnaire, clinical examination, automated pure-tone audiometry and a speech-in-noise test was designed. RESULTS: Of the total 46 patients included in the study, eighteen (39%) had self-reported hearing loss. The mean scores in the SSQ were 8.2, 8.3 and 8.6 for the Speech, Spatial and Qualities subscales, respectively. In audiometry, the mean pure tone average (PTA) was 17.1 (SD 12.2) and 17.1 (SD 12.3) dB HL for the right and left ears, respectively, with no difference to gender- and age-matched, otologically normal reference values. The average speech reception threshold in noise (SRT) was - 8.2 (SD 1.5) and - 8.0 (SD 1.7) dB SNR for the right and left ears, respectively, which did not differ from a control group with a comparable range in PTA thresholds. CONCLUSION: Although a significant proportion of AGel amyloidosis patients experience subjective difficulties in hearing there seems to be no peripheral or central hearing impairment at least in patients up to the age of 60 years.

The Listening Network and Cochlear Implant Benefits in Hearing-Impaired Adults.

Older adults with mild or no hearing loss make more errors and expend more effort listening to speech. Cochlear implants (CI) restore hearing to deaf patients but with limited fidelity. We hypothesized that patient-reported hearing and health-related quality of life in CI patients may similarly vary according to age. Speech Spatial Qualities (SSQ) of hearing scale and Health Utilities Index Mark III (HUI) questionnaires were administered to 543 unilaterally implanted adults across Europe, South Africa, and South America. Data were acquired before surgery and at 1, 2, and 3 years post-surgery. Data were analyzed using linear mixed models with visit, age group (18-34, 35-44, 45-54, 55-64, and 65+), and side of implant as main factors and adjusted for other covariates. Tinnitus and dizziness prevalence did not vary with age, but older groups had more preoperative hearing. Preoperatively and postoperatively, SSQ scores were significantly higher (Δ0.75-0.82) for those aged <45 compared with those 55+. However, gains in SSQ scores were equivalent across age groups, although postoperative SSQ scores were higher in right-ear implanted subjects. All age groups benefited equally in terms of HUI gain (0.18), with no decrease in scores with age. Overall, younger adults appeared to cope better with a degraded hearing before and after CI, leading to better subjective hearing performance.

One-Year Results for Patients with Unilateral Hearing Loss and Accompanying Severe Tinnitus and Hyperacusis Treated with a Cochlear Implant.

OBJECTIVE: To show that patients with unilateral hearing loss (UHL), with one ear fulfilling cochlear implant (CI) indication criteria, and an additional severe tinnitus handicap can be treated effectively with a CI. METHOD: A prospective multi-centre study was conducted in five Spanish centres. Sixteen adult patients with UHL and a mean Tinnitus Handicap Inventory (THI) score of at least 58 were implanted. The study design included repeated within-subject measures of quality of life (Health Utility Index Mark 3 [HUI3]), tinnitus (THI, Visual Analogue Scale [VAS] on tinnitus loudness), hearing (Speech, Spatial, and Qualities of Hearing Scale- [SSQ]), and hyperacusis (Test de Hipersensibilidad al Sonido [THS]) up to 12 months after the initial CI fitting. RESULTS: Group data showed significant subjective benefit from CI treatment: the preoperative HUI3 total utility score of 0.45 went up to 0.57 at 6 months and 0.63 at 12 months; the preoperative THI total score of 75 decreased to 40 at 6 months and 35 at 12 months. The preoperative tinnitus loudness VAS score of 8.2 decreased to 2.4 at 6 months and 2.2 at 12 months with the implant "On" and to 6.7 at 6 months and 6.5 at 12 months with the implant "Off." The preoperative THS total score of 26 decreased to 17 at 12 months. The preoperative SSQ total score of 4.2 increased to 5.1 at 6 months and 6.3 at 12 months. No unanticipated adverse events were reported during the study period. At 12 months after CI activation all subjects (except 1 subject who used the device 6 days a week) wore their devices all day and every day. The primary reason for CI use was split evenly between tinnitus suppression (n = 6) and both hearing and tinnitus (n = 6). CONCLUSION: A CI should be considered as a treatment option in patients with UHL and a concomitant severe tinnitus handicap. However, appropriate counselling of candidates on the anticipated risks, benefits, and limitations that are inherent to cochlear implantation is imperative.

Patient-Related Benefits for Adults with Cochlear Implantation: A Multicultural Longitudinal Observational Study.

OBJECTIVES: To assess subjectively perceived, real-world benefits longitudinally for unilateral cochlear implant (CI) recipients in a multinational population treated routinely. To identify possible predictors of self-reported benefits. DESIGN: This was a prospective, multicenter, repeated-measures study. Self-assessment of performance at preimplantation and postimplantation at 1, 2, and 3 years using standardized, validated, local language versions of the Speech, Spatial, and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ), and the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3) was performed. Outcomes were analyzed using a longitudinal mixed-effects model incorporating country effect. Patient demographics were explored for associations with change over time. SUBJECTS: Two hundred ninety-one routinely treated, unilateral CI recipients, aged 13-81 years, from 9 clinics across 4 countries. RESULTS: Highly significant improvements were observed for all outcome measures (p < 0.0001). Postimplantation, mean outcome scores remained stable beyond 1 year, with notable individual variability. A significant association for one or more outcomes with preimplantation contralateral hearing aid use, telephone use, age at implantation, implantation side, preimplantation comorbidities, dizziness, and tinnitus was observed (p < 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Longitudinal benefits of CI treatment can be measured using clinically standardized self-assessment tools to provide a holistic view of patient-related benefits in routine clinical practice for aggregated data from multinational populations. Self-reported outcomes can provide medical-based evidence regarding CI treatment to support decision-making by health service providers.

Validation of a French translation of the Speech, Spatial, and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ) and comparison with other language versions.

OBJECTIVE: To validate a French version of the speech, spatial, and qualities of hearing scale (SSQ), a subjective evaluation of patients' hearing disability, and to assess SSQ reproducibility across different language versions. DESIGN: The SSQ was translated in accordance with the principles of the 'Universalist approach' of cross-cultural adaptation of patient-reported outcome instruments. Scores from a normal-hearing and a hearing-impaired population were compiled and compared, whenever possible, with data from the literature, collected using other language versions. STUDY SAMPLE: One hundred normal-hearing subjects and 230 hearing-impaired subjects. RESULTS: Good reproducibility of scores and inter-subject variability were obtained between several language versions, even if scores found using the French version were slightly lower than those obtained using Dutch or English versions. A comparison of factor analysis outcomes between the English and French versions confirmed good conceptual equivalence across languages and robustness of the SSQ for use in international settings. The three main subscales (speech, spatial, and qualities) confirmed their usefulness in assessing different aspects of hearing disability. CONCLUSION: This study validated a French-language version of the SSQ, and assessed the reproducibility of the SSQ across subject groups, administration modes, and different countries/languages, confirming its potential as an international standard for hearing disability evaluation.