PURPOSE: Seven scales of the Communication Profile for the Hearing Impaired (CPHI; M. E. Demorest & S. A. Erdman, 1987) were translated into Dutch: Maladaptive Behavior, Verbal Strategies, and Nonverbal Strategies (within the area of Communication Strategies) and Self-Acceptance, Acceptance of Loss, Stress, and Withdrawal (within the area of Personal Adjustment). METHOD: This cross-sectional study evaluated the factor structure, internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and measurement error of the Dutch CPHI scales. In all, 399 adults with impaired hearing participated, and data on a subgroup of 40 patients were included in the test-retest analyses. The participants completed the questionnaire before routine clinical care or at home. Demographic data and data on pure-tone hearing thresholds were also collected. RESULTS: Based on item factor analyses, we omitted 5 items, moved 3 items to different scales, and combined the Stress and Withdrawal scales. The resulting 6 scales, containing 52 items, showed good internal consistency (alphas between 0.81 and 0.94), good test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficients between 0.78 and 0.86), and small standard error of measurement (between 0.28 and 0.46). CONCLUSIONS: The suggested revisions of the Dutch CPHI scales will increase their interpretability. Further research is needed to evaluate their usefulness for monitoring patients and in longitudinal studies by determining their responsiveness and minimal important change values.
PURPOSE: Seven scales of the Communication Profile for the Hearing Impaired (CPHI; M. E. Demorest & S. A. Erdman, 1987) were translated into Dutch: Maladaptive Behavior, Verbal Strategies, and Nonverbal Strategies (within the area of Communication Strategies) and Self-Acceptance, Acceptance of Loss, Stress, and Withdrawal (within the area of Personal Adjustment). METHOD: This cross-sectional study evaluated the factor structure, internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and measurement error of the Dutch CPHI scales. In all, 399 adults with impaired hearing participated, and data on a subgroup of 40 patients were included in the test-retest analyses. The participants completed the questionnaire before routine clinical care or at home. Demographic data and data on pure-tone hearing thresholds were also collected. RESULTS: Based on item factor analyses, we omitted 5 items, moved 3 items to different scales, and combined the Stress and Withdrawal scales. The resulting 6 scales, containing 52 items, showed good internal consistency (alphas between 0.81 and 0.94), good test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficients between 0.78 and 0.86), and small standard error of measurement (between 0.28 and 0.46). CONCLUSIONS: The suggested revisions of the Dutch CPHI scales will increase their interpretability. Further research is needed to evaluate their usefulness for monitoring patients and in longitudinal studies by determining their responsiveness and minimal important change values.
Authors: Arjenne H M Gussenhoven; Johannes R Anema; S Theo Goverts; Judith E Bosmans; Joost M Festen; Sophia E Kramer Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2012-03-01 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Arjenne H M Gussenhoven; Johannes R Anema; Birgit I Witte; S Theo Goverts; Sophia E Kramer Journal: Trends Hear Date: 2017 Jan-Dec Impact factor: 3.293
Authors: Hanneke E M van der Hoek-Snieders; Monique Boymans; Bas Sorgdrager; Wouter A Dreschler Journal: Int Arch Occup Environ Health Date: 2020-06-07 Impact factor: 3.015
Authors: Janine Fj Meijerink; Marieke Pronk; Birgit I Lissenberg-Witte; Vera Jansen; Sophia E Kramer Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2020-09-22 Impact factor: 5.428