{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,7,8]],"date-time":"2026-07-08T14:49:26Z","timestamp":1783522166022,"version":"3.55.0"},"reference-count":18,"publisher":"Frontiers Media SA","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2022,4,29]],"date-time":"2022-04-29T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1651190400000},"content-version":"vor","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0\/"}],"content-domain":{"domain":["frontiersin.org"],"crossmark-restriction":true},"short-container-title":["Front. Neurosci."],"abstract":"<jats:sec><jats:title>Background<\/jats:title><jats:p>Surgical success of cochlear implantation is usually measured through speech perception and quality of life questionnaires. Although these questionnaires cover a broad spectrum of domains, they do not evaluate the consciousness of wearing a cochlear implant (CI) and how this impacts the daily life of patients. To evaluate this concept we aimed to develop and validate a standardized patient reported outcome measure (PROM) for use in cochlear implant users.<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Methods<\/jats:title><jats:p>Development and evaluation of the COchlear iMPlant AwareneSS (COMPASS) questionnaire was realized following the COSMIN guidelines in three phases: (1) item generation, (2) qualitative pilot study to ensure relevance, comprehensiveness, comprehensibility, and face validity, and (3) quantitative survey study for the assessment of reliability (test-retest) with 54 participants.<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Results<\/jats:title><jats:p>Nine domains of CI awareness were identified through literature research and interviews with experts and patients. These resulted in the formulation of 18 items which were tested with a pilot study, after which 3 items were deleted. The final 15-item COMPASS questionnaire proved to have good validity and satisfactory reliability. The intraclass correlation coefficient calculated for items with continuous variables ranged from 0.66 to 0.89 with seven out of eight items scoring above the acceptable level of 0.7. The Cohen\u2019s kappa calculated for items with nominal variables ranged from \u22120.4 to 0.78 with 11 (sub)items out of 15 scoring above fair to good agreement. Measurement error analysis for items with continuous variables showed a mean difference of \u22122.18 to 0.22. The calculated 95% limits of agreement for these items revealed no statistically significant difference between the two administered questionnaires. For items with nominal variables, the percentages of agreement calculated, ranged between 0 and 95%, and 83.3 and 96.6% for positive and negative agreement, respectively.<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Conclusion<\/jats:title><jats:p>The COMPASS questionnaire is a valid and reliable PROM for evaluating the cochlear implant awareness, and it can be easily used in routine clinical practice.<\/jats:p><\/jats:sec>","DOI":"10.3389\/fnins.2022.830768","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2022,4,29]],"date-time":"2022-04-29T06:59:43Z","timestamp":1651215583000},"update-policy":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3389\/crossmark-policy","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":5,"title":["Cochlear Implant Awareness: Development and Validation of a Patient Reported Outcome Measure"],"prefix":"10.3389","volume":"16","author":[{"given":"Laura M.","family":"Markodimitraki","sequence":"first","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Inge","family":"Stegeman","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Hans G. X. M.","family":"Thomeer","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]}],"member":"1965","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2022,4,29]]},"reference":[{"key":"B1","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"164","DOI":"10.1111\/coa.12713","article-title":"Self-reported cochlear implant management skills: development and validation of the self-administered Cochlear Implant Management Skills (CIMS-self) survey.","volume":"42","author":"Bennett","year":"2017","journal-title":"Clin. Otolaryngol."},{"key":"B2","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"615","DOI":"10.1080\/14992027.2020.1731615","article-title":"Investigating the prevalence and impact of device-related problems associated with hearing aid use.","volume":"59","author":"Bennett","year":"2020","journal-title":"Int. J. Audiol."},{"key":"B3","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"77","DOI":"10.1097\/AUD.0000000000000595","article-title":"How do hearing aid owners respond to hearing aid problems?","volume":"40","author":"Bennett","year":"2019","journal-title":"Ear Hear."},{"key":"B4","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"221","DOI":"10.1016\/j.otc.2011.09.002","article-title":"Cochlear implantation: current and future device options.","volume":"45","author":"Carlson","year":"2012","journal-title":"Otolaryngol. Clin. North Am."},{"key":"B5","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","DOI":"10.1002\/0471445428","author":"Fleiss","year":"2003","journal-title":"Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions."},{"key":"B6","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"92","DOI":"10.1080\/14670100.2019.1670487","article-title":"Pediatric cochlear implant wear time and early language development.","volume":"21","author":"Gagnon","year":"2020","journal-title":"Cochlear Implants Int."},{"key":"B7","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"265","DOI":"10.1001\/jamaoto.2013.1744","article-title":"Cochlear implantation in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","volume":"139","author":"Gaylor","year":"2013","journal-title":"JAMA Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg."},{"key":"B8","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"756","DOI":"10.1067\/mhn.2000.108203","article-title":"Development and application of a health-related quality-of-life instrument for adults with cochlear implants: the Nijmegen cochlear implant questionnaire.","volume":"123","author":"Hinderink","year":"2000","journal-title":"Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg."},{"key":"B9","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"e227","DOI":"10.1097\/MAO.0000000000002477","article-title":"Duration of processor use per day is significantly correlated with speech recognition abilities in adults with cochlear implants.","volume":"41","author":"Holder","year":"2020","journal-title":"Otol. Neurotol."},{"key":"B10","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"203","DOI":"10.1179\/cim.2007.8.4.203","article-title":"Taste change following cochlear implantation.","volume":"8","author":"Lloyd","year":"2007","journal-title":"Cochlear Implants Int."},{"key":"B11","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"47","DOI":"10.2174\/1874428101004010047","article-title":"Quality of life measurements after cochlear implantation.","volume":"4","author":"Loeffler","year":"2014","journal-title":"Open Otorhinolaryngol. J."},{"key":"B12","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"360","DOI":"10.3109\/14992027.2013.769066","article-title":"Why do people fitted with hearing aids not wear them?","volume":"52","author":"McCormack","year":"2013","journal-title":"Int. J. Audiol."},{"key":"B13","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"982","DOI":"10.1002\/lary.26738","article-title":"Meta-analysis of quality-of-life improvement after cochlear implantation and associations with speech recognition abilities.","volume":"128","author":"McRackan","year":"2018","journal-title":"Laryngoscope"},{"key":"B14","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"309","DOI":"10.1017\/S0022215116010008","article-title":"Pre- and post-operative dizziness, tinnitus, and taste disturbances among cochlear implant recipients.","volume":"131","author":"Mikkelsen","year":"2017","journal-title":"J. Laryngol. Otol."},{"key":"B15","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"539","DOI":"10.1007\/s11136-010-9606-8","article-title":"The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi study.","volume":"19","author":"Mokkink","year":"2010","journal-title":"Qual. Life Res."},{"key":"B16","author":"Nunnally","year":"1994","journal-title":"Psychometric Theory"},{"key":"B17","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"1029","DOI":"10.1007\/s11136-018-2076-0","article-title":"Assessing test\u2013retest reliability of patient-reported outcome measures using intraclass correlation coefficients: recommendations for selecting and documenting the analytical formula.","volume":"28","author":"Qin","year":"2019","journal-title":"Qual. Life Res."},{"key":"B18","doi-asserted-by":"publisher","first-page":"231","DOI":"10.1519\/15184.1","article-title":"Quantifying test-retest reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient and the SEM.","volume":"19","author":"Weir","year":"2005","journal-title":"J. Strength. Cond. Res."}],"container-title":["Frontiers in Neuroscience"],"original-title":[],"link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/www.frontiersin.org\/articles\/10.3389\/fnins.2022.830768\/full","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2022,4,29]],"date-time":"2022-04-29T06:59:51Z","timestamp":1651215591000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/www.frontiersin.org\/articles\/10.3389\/fnins.2022.830768\/full"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2022,4,29]]},"references-count":18,"alternative-id":["10.3389\/fnins.2022.830768"],"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3389\/fnins.2022.830768","relation":{},"ISSN":["1662-453X"],"issn-type":[{"value":"1662-453X","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2022,4,29]]},"article-number":"830768"}}