Psychometric properties of the Persian version of the functioning after pediatric cochlear implantation
Background and Aim: One of the main objectives of cochlear implant surgery for parents, specialists, and trainers is that children can realize their needs using verbal communication skills. This is while there are a few instruments for evaluating children’s communication performance after cochlear implant surgery. The present study was conducted with the aim of adapting and investigating psychometric properties of the Persian version of the Functioning after Pediatric Cochlear Implantation (FAPCI).
Methods: The present study is a test development, in which FAPCI was translated into Persian and then culturally adapted with conditions in Iran. To do so, 60 parents of children with cochlear implant (37 boys and 23 girls) were selected randomly. The age of these children ranged from 2 years and 3 months old to 6 years and 5 months old. The results were analyzed using correlation of items with total score, construct validity, and internal consistency.
Results: The correlation coefficients of items with the total score were significant in all cases. The results of factor analysis indicated that the scale consists of one factor which totally explains 65% of the variance. The Chronabch’s alpha coefficient for the whole inventory was calculated as 0.95.
Conclusion: According to the results obtained from the present study, it seems that the Persian version of the FAPCI enjoys acceptable psychometric properties and it can be used for evaluating the communication performance of pre-school children.
2. Norton SJ, Perkins JO. Early detection and diagnosis of infant hearing impairment. In: Cummings CW, Haughey BH, Thomas JR, Harker LA, Robbins KT, Schuller DE, et al., editors. Cummings otolaryngology-head and neck surgery. 4th ed. New York: W.B. Saunders Company; 2005. p. 4387-98.
3. Jeddi Z, Jafari Z, Motasaddi Zarandy M. Effect of aural rehabilitation on speech and cognition development in children with cochlear implant. Advances in Cognitive Sceince. 2012:14(2):35-44.
4. Rosen R. Deafness: a social perspective. In: Luterman D, editor. Deafness in Perspective.1st ed. San Diego: College-Hill Press; 1986. p. 241-5.
5. Scheetz NA. Psychosocial aspects of deafness. Boston: MA: Pearson Education; 2004.
6. Lima Júnior LR, Rocha MD, Walsh PV, Antunes CA, Dias Ferreira Calhau CM. Evaluation by imaging methods of cochlear implant candidates: radiological and surgical correlation. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol. 2008;74(3):395-400.
7. Peng SC, Tomblin JB, Turner CW. Production and perception of speech intonation in pediatric cochlear implant recipients and individuals with normal hearing. Ear Hear. 2008;29(3):336-51.
8. Ashoori M, Jalilabknar SS, Hasanzadeh S, Pourmohamadreza Tajrishi M. Speech intelligibility in children with cochlear implant, with hearing aids and normal hearing. Journal of Rehabilitation. 2013;14(3):8-15. Persian.
9. Summerfield AQ, Marshall DH. Paediatric cochlear implantation and health-technology assessment. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 1999;47(2):141-51.
10. Archbold S, Tait M. Facilitating progress after cochlear implantation: rehabilitation-rationale and practice. In: MacCormick B, Archbold S, editors. Cochlear implants for young children: the Nottingham approach to assessment and rehabilitation. 2nd ed. London: Whurr Publishers; 2003. p. 257-301.
11. Geers AE, Nicholas JG, Sedey AL. Language skills of children with early cochlear implantation. Ear Hear. 2003;24(1 Suppl):46S-58S.
12. Svirsky MA, Robbins AM, Kirk KI, Pisoni DB, Miyamoto RT. Language development in profoundly deaf children with cochlear implants. Psychol Sci. 2000;11(2):153-8.
13. Schorr EA, Roth FP, Fox NA. A comparison of the speech and language skills of children with cochlear implants and children with normal hearing. Commun Disord Q. 2008;29(4):195-210.
14. Erber NP. Auditory training. 1st ed. Washington, D.C.: Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf; 1982.
15. Lin FR, Ceh K, Bervinchak D, Riley A, Miech R, Niparko JK. Development of a communicative performance scale for pediatric cochlear implantation. Ear Hear. 2007;28(5):703-12.
16. Thoutenhoofd ED, Archbold SM, Gregory S, Lutman ME, Nikolopoulos TP, Sach TH. Paediatric cochlear implantation: evaluating outcomes. 1st ed. West Sussex: Wiley; 2005.
17. Lin FR, Niparko JK. Measuring health-related quality of life after pediatric cochlear implantation: a systematic review. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2006;70(10):1695-706.
18. Aaronson NK, Acquadro C, Alonso J, Apolone G, Bucquet D, Bullinger M, et al. International quality of life assessment (iqola) project. Qual Life Res. 1992;1(5):349-51.
19. Vassoler TM, Cordeiro ML. Brazilian adaptation of the Functioning after Pediatric Cochlear Implantation (FAPCI): comparison between normal hearing and cochlear implanted children. J Pediatr (Rio J). 2015;91(2):160-7.
20. Grugel L, Streicher B, Lang-Roth R, Walger M, von Wedel H, Meister H. Development of a German version of the Functioning After Pediatric Cochlear Implantation (FAPCI) questionnaire. HNO. 2009;57(7):678-84. German.
21. Shahrivari K, Nategh E, Azimkhani A, Azizi Javan H. The construction and standardization of the rating scale for diagnosis of conduct disorder among the students in fifth grade of elementary school in Tehran city, central part of Iran (Teachers’ form). Journal of Fundamentals of Mental Health. 2010;12(3):574-83. Persian.
22. Polit DF, Beck CT, Owen SV. Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations. Res Nurs Health. 2007;30(4):459-67.
23. Anastasi A. Psychological testing. 5th ed. New York: Collier Macmillan Ltd; 1982.
24. Russell D, Peplau LA, Ferguson ML. Developing a measure of loneliness. J Pers Assess. 1978;42(3):290-4.
|Issue||Vol 24 No 4 (2015)|
|Communication performance cochlear implant psychometric properties children|
|Rights and permissions|
|This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.|