Evaluation of the impact of hearing loss in adults: Validation of a quality of life questionnaire

• Published in: European annals of otorhinolaryngology, head and neck diseases Vol. 135; no. 1; pp. 25 - 31
• Main Authors: Ambert-Dahan, E., Laouénan, C., Lebredonchel, M., Borel, S., Carillo, C., Bouccara, D., Sterkers, O., Ferrary, E., Mosnier, I.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: France Elsevier Masson SAS 01-02-2018
• Subjects: Auditory rehabilitation; Cochlear implant; Evaluation; Hearing loss; Cochlear implant; Evaluation; Auditory rehabilitation; Hearing loss
• ISSN: 1879-7296; 1879-730X
• DOI: 10.1016/j.anorl.2017.09.003

The impact of hearing loss and of auditory rehabilitation (hearing aid, cochlear implant) on quality of life is a crucial issue. Commonly used questionnaires to assess quality of life in these patients (Nijmegen, APHAB, GBI) are time-consuming, difficult for patients to fill out, and show poor sensitivity to small improvements or deterioration. The objective of the present study was to validate a dedicated quality of life scale for hearing-impaired adults with or without auditory rehabilitation.
ERSA (Évaluation du Retentissement de la Surdité chez l’Adulte: Evaluation of the Impact of Hearing Loss in Adults) is a self-administered questionnaire. It is divided into 4 domains, each comprising 5 questions graded from 1 to 10. The questions are simple, and formulated so patients will answer according to how they feel at the actual time of the session. Test-retest reliability was measured in 38 patients. Internal coherence and validity against the APHAB questionnaire as gold standard and in relation to hearing performance were measured in 122 patients at auditory assessment. Sensitivity to change in hearing was measured in 36 cochlear implant patients, before and 6 or 12 months after implantation.
Test-retest reliability was very satisfactory (ρ=0.88). Internal coherence was good for all questions. External validity, comparing ERSA to APHAB scores in the same non-implanted hearing-impaired patients, was good (ρ=0.52). Additionally, ERSA scores correlated with hearing performance in adverse conditions (monosyllabic words: ρ=0.22; sentences in noise: ρ=0.19). In patients tested before and after cochlear implantation, improvement in hearing performance in silence and in noise correlated with an improvement in ERSA score (ρ=0.37 to 0.59, depending on the test), but not to GBI score.
The ERSA questionnaire is easy and quick to use, reliable, and sensitive to change in hearing performance after cochlear implantation.