PURPOSE: The Communicative Participation Item Bank (CPIB) was developed to evaluate participation restrictions in communication situations for individuals with speech and language disorders. This study evaluated the potential relevance of CPIB items for individuals with hearing loss. METHOD: Cognitive interviews were conducted with 17 adults with a range of treated and untreated hearing loss, who responded to 46 items. Interviews were continued until saturation was reached and prevalent trends emerged. A focus group was also conducted with 3 experienced audiologists to seek their views on the CPIB. Analysis of data included qualitative and quantitative approaches. RESULTS: The majority of the items were applicable to individuals with hearing loss; however, 12 items were identified as potentially not relevant. This was largely attributed to the items' focus on speech production rather than hearing. The results from the focus group were in agreement for a majority of items. CONCLUSIONS: The next step in validating the CPIB for individuals with hearing loss is a psychometric analysis on a large sample. Possible outcomes could be that the CPIB is considered valid in its entirety or the creation of a new questionnaire or a hearing loss-specific short form with a subset of items is necessary.
PURPOSE: The Communicative Participation Item Bank (CPIB) was developed to evaluate participation restrictions in communication situations for individuals with speech and language disorders. This study evaluated the potential relevance of CPIB items for individuals with hearing loss. METHOD: Cognitive interviews were conducted with 17 adults with a range of treated and untreated hearing loss, who responded to 46 items. Interviews were continued until saturation was reached and prevalent trends emerged. A focus group was also conducted with 3 experienced audiologists to seek their views on the CPIB. Analysis of data included qualitative and quantitative approaches. RESULTS: The majority of the items were applicable to individuals with hearing loss; however, 12 items were identified as potentially not relevant. This was largely attributed to the items' focus on speech production rather than hearing. The results from the focus group were in agreement for a majority of items. CONCLUSIONS: The next step in validating the CPIB for individuals with hearing loss is a psychometric analysis on a large sample. Possible outcomes could be that the CPIB is considered valid in its entirety or the creation of a new questionnaire or a hearing loss-specific short form with a subset of items is necessary.
Authors: Bryce B Reeve; Ron D Hays; Jakob B Bjorner; Karon F Cook; Paul K Crane; Jeanne A Teresi; David Thissen; Dennis A Revicki; David J Weiss; Ronald K Hambleton; Honghu Liu; Richard Gershon; Steven P Reise; Jin-shei Lai; David Cella Journal: Med Care Date: 2007-05 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Ee-Munn Chia; Jie Jin Wang; Elena Rochtchina; Robert R Cumming; Philip Newall; Paul Mitchell Journal: Ear Hear Date: 2007-04 Impact factor: 3.570
Authors: Carolyn R Baylor; Kathryn M Yorkston; Tanya L Eadie; Robert M Miller; Dagmar Amtmann Journal: J Speech Lang Hear Res Date: 2009-08-28 Impact factor: 2.297
Authors: Rene L Utianski; Peter R Martin; Joseph R Duffy; Hugo Botha; Heather M Clark; Keith A Josephs Journal: Am J Speech Lang Pathol Date: 2021-09-07 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Rene L Utianski; Heather M Clark; Joseph R Duffy; Hugo Botha; Jennifer L Whitwell; Keith A Josephs Journal: Am J Speech Lang Pathol Date: 2020-08-05 Impact factor: 2.408