Background: Few quality of life (QOL) assessment tools are available for children with specific chronic conditions, and none have been designed specifically for children with hearing loss (HL). A validated hearing-related QOL questionnaire could help clinicians determine whether an intervention is beneficial and whether one intervention is better than another.
Purpose: To examine QOL in children with HL and assess the validity, reliability, and factor structure of a new measure, the Hearing Environments and Reflection on Quality of Life (HEAR-QL) questionnaire.
Research Design: A descriptive and correlational study of a convenience sample of children.
Study Sample: Participants included 35 children with unilateral HL, 45 with bilateral HL, and 35 siblings with normal hearing.
Data Collection and Analysis: Children 7–12 yr old were recruited by mail from a tertiary-care pediatric otolaryngology practice and the local county's Special School District. With parent consent, children completed the validated Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory™ (PedsQL) 4.0 and a 35-item HEAR-QL questionnaire. The factor structure of the HEAR-QL was determined through principal components analysis (PCA), and mean scores were computed for each subscale and the total HEAR-QL. Three weeks following the return of the initial questionnaires, a second HEAR-QL questionnaire was sent to participants to assess test–retest reliability. Both PedsQL and HEAR-QL scores were compared between children with and without HL, between children with unilateral and bilateral HL, and between children who used and did not use a hearing device using analysis of variance. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated for both the HEAR-QL and the PedsQL. A multivariable, hierarchical linear regression analysis was conducted with independent variables associated with the HEAR-QL in unadjusted tests.
Results: Using exploratory PCA, the 35-item HEAR-QL was reduced to 26 items (Cronbach's α = 0.97, sensitivity of 91% and specificity of 92% at a cutoff score of 93.5) loading on three factors: difficulty hearing in certain environments/situations (Environments α = 0.97), impact of HL on social/sports activities (Activities α = 0.92), and impact of HL on child's feelings (Feelings α = 0.88). Sensitivity of 78.8% and specificity of 30.9% at a cutoff score of 69.6 on the PedsQL (at risk for impaired QOL) were lower than for the HEAR-QL. Participants with HL reported significantly lower mean total HEAR-QL scores (71 [SD 18] vs. 98 [SD 5], p < .001), but not mean total PedsQL scores (77 [SD 14] vs. 83 [SD 15], p = .47), than participants with normal hearing. Among children with bilateral HL, children who used a hearing device reported lower mean total HEAR-QL scores (p = .01), but not mean total PedsQL scores (p = .55), than children who did not use a hearing device. The intraclass correlation coefficient for test–retest reliability for the 26-item HEAR-QL total score was 0.83. Hearing status and use of a device were independently associated with the HEAR-QL, and the variables in the model accounted for 46% of the HEAR-QL total score variance.
Conclusions: The HEAR-QL appears to be a valid, reliable, and sensitive questionnaire for children with HL. The HEAR-QL was better able than the PedsQL to distinguish between children with and without HL and can help evaluate interventions for children with HL.
Quality of life of children with hearing loss in special and mainstream education: A longitudinal study
