SLPSurveyTrends in hearing2026

Assessing Hearing-Related Quality of Life in Adults With Hearing Loss: Validation of the German Cochlear Implant Quality of Life (CIQOL)-35 Profile.

Elena Pützer, Theodore R McRackan, Isabelle Boisvert and 2 others

PMID 42299681

WHAT IT FOUND

The German CIQOL-35 measures hearing-related quality of life in adult cochlear implant users reliably and tracks the older NCIQ closely, while also covering listening effort and entertainment, which the NCIQ does not.

Its items came from what implant users said mattered.

Key findings

01The German CIQOL-35 Profile hung together as a measure: every one of its six areas and its overall score showed good internal consistency, with values between 0.84 and 0.91.

02The overall score tracked the older NCIQ closely, correlating 0.85 with the NCIQ total and 0.83 with its short version, and every correlation tested was statistically significant.

03The older NCIQ held together less well in the same analysis: two of its domains failed every threshold the authors set, and two of its items shared less than 10% of their variance with the factor they were meant to measure.

STILL TO COME

How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for SLPs

Read the rest of this summary

You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.

Already have one?

What it does not show

Everyone who took part volunteered through an implant clinic, a rehabilitation clinic or an implant association, so people with a strong interest in the topic or a good link to services are likely over-represented. The sample was younger and more often female than the German implant registry reports: here 26% were aged 65 to 85 and 65% were women, while registry data for 2022 show about 40% aged 65 to 85 and roughly equal numbers of men and women. Only a handful of participants did not have an implant, so the questionnaire was barely tested in people who are being considered for an implant but have not had surgery yet, even though that was the intention. Nobody filled the questionnaire in twice, so there is no evidence that the same person gives the same answers on different days; the authors chose internal consistency instead and accept this as a limitation. The NCIQ was always answered second in the survey and came with a warning that some of its wording may be outdated, which may have increased the number of skipped answers on it. Adults with hearing loss in one ear only were excluded, though they are a growing group, and the questionnaire has not been tested in them. The authors did not test whether scores change after implantation or line up with speech recognition, implant use or wearing time.

Declared interests

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship or publication of the article. Four authors declared no conflicts of interest. One author, T. R. McRackan, sits on the Medical Advisory Board for Envoy Medical.

The easy way to misread this

Do not read this as evidence that the questionnaire detects change after implantation. The study only checked that it measures consistently at a single point in time; the authors did not test whether scores move with speech recognition, implant use or surgery, and nobody answered it twice. It also left out adults with hearing loss in one ear only, so its scores in that group are unknown.

Summarised by AI from the full paper, without a clinician reviewing it. Check it against the source before it changes what you do. Read it on PubMed →