HYPOTHESES: Adult cochlear implant (CI) outcomes depend on demographic, sensory, and cognitive factors. However, these factors have not been examined together comprehensively for relations to different outcome types, such as speech recognition versus quality of life (QOL). Three hypotheses were tested: 1) speech recognition will be explained most strongly by sensory factors, whereas QOL will be explained more strongly by cognitive factors. 2) Different speech recognition outcome domains (sentences versus words) and different QOL domains (physical versus social versus psychological functioning) will be explained differentially by demographic, sensory, and cognitive factors. 3) Including cognitive factors as predictors will provide more power to explain outcomes than demographic and sensory predictors alone. BACKGROUND: A better understanding of the contributors to CI outcomes is needed to prognosticate outcomes before surgery, explain outcomes after surgery, and tailor rehabilitation efforts. METHODS: Forty-one adult postlingual experienced CI users were assessed for sentence and word recognition, as well as hearing-related QOL, along with a broad collection of predictors. Partial least squares regression was used to identify factors that were most predictive of outcome measures. RESULTS: Supporting our hypotheses, speech recognition abilities were most strongly dependent on sensory skills, while QOL outcomes required a combination of cognitive, sensory, and demographic predictors. The inclusion of cognitive measures increased the ability to explain outcomes, mainly for QOL. CONCLUSIONS: Explaining variability in adult CI outcomes requires a broad assessment approach. Identifying the most important predictors depends on the particular outcome domain and even the particular measure of interest.
HYPOTHESES: Adult cochlear implant (CI) outcomes depend on demographic, sensory, and cognitive factors. However, these factors have not been examined together comprehensively for relations to different outcome types, such as speech recognition versus quality of life (QOL). Three hypotheses were tested: 1) speech recognition will be explained most strongly by sensory factors, whereas QOL will be explained more strongly by cognitive factors. 2) Different speech recognition outcome domains (sentences versus words) and different QOL domains (physical versus social versus psychological functioning) will be explained differentially by demographic, sensory, and cognitive factors. 3) Including cognitive factors as predictors will provide more power to explain outcomes than demographic and sensory predictors alone. BACKGROUND: A better understanding of the contributors to CI outcomes is needed to prognosticate outcomes before surgery, explain outcomes after surgery, and tailor rehabilitation efforts. METHODS: Forty-one adult postlingual experienced CI users were assessed for sentence and word recognition, as well as hearing-related QOL, along with a broad collection of predictors. Partial least squares regression was used to identify factors that were most predictive of outcome measures. RESULTS: Supporting our hypotheses, speech recognition abilities were most strongly dependent on sensory skills, while QOL outcomes required a combination of cognitive, sensory, and demographic predictors. The inclusion of cognitive measures increased the ability to explain outcomes, mainly for QOL. CONCLUSIONS: Explaining variability in adult CI outcomes requires a broad assessment approach. Identifying the most important predictors depends on the particular outcome domain and even the particular measure of interest.
Authors: David B Pisoni; Arthur Broadstock; Taylor Wucinich; Natalie Safdar; Kelly Miller; Luis R Hernandez; Kara Vasil; Lauren Boyce; Alexandra Davies; Michael S Harris; Irina Castellanos; Huiping Xu; William G Kronenberger; Aaron C Moberly Journal: Ear Hear Date: 2018 Jul/Aug Impact factor: 3.570
Authors: Laura K Holden; Charles C Finley; Jill B Firszt; Timothy A Holden; Christine Brenner; Lisa G Potts; Brenda D Gotter; Sallie S Vanderhoof; Karen Mispagel; Gitry Heydebrand; Margaret W Skinner Journal: Ear Hear Date: 2013 May-Jun Impact factor: 3.570