Validation and Preference-Based Scoring of the York Binaural Hearing-Related Quality of Life Questionnaire for Young People.
Adam J Pedley, Sarah Somerset, Deborah Vickers and 2 others
PMID 41162340WHAT IT FOUND
A short hearing-related questionnaire for children with hearing loss showed stable scores when repeated and lined up with related hearing and fatigue measures.
Adult proxy answers were less comparable, so use the child's own responses when possible.
Key findings
01The YBHRQL-Y is a 3-question hearing-related quality-of-life measure for children aged 8 to 16 years.
02Derived health utility scores had good test-retest stability (ICC = 0.82), and domain responses showed at least moderate agreement.
03Adult proxy responses were lower than child responses (mean 0.67 vs 0.72) and showed poor reliability and agreement.
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.
What it does not show
This study validated a questionnaire and created utility weights; it did not test whether any hearing intervention improves quality of life. The health utility weights came from young adults aged 18 to 24 years, not from children, because children were not asked to imagine trading years of life. The reliability and validity sample was 71 children recruited through social media, charities, and support groups, so it may not represent all children with hearing loss. Parent proxy responses did not agree well with children's responses, so proxy scores should not be treated as equivalent to child-reported scores. The study only assessed repeated administration about 2 weeks apart, not longer follow-up.
Declared interests
The authors declared no conflicts of interest. The funder was named as Programme Grants for Applied Research.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read this as evidence that a hearing intervention improves quality of life. The study tested a questionnaire and created utility weights, not an intervention.
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 →