Measures of Comparative Behavior in Hearing Loss Patients with Cochlear Implant: Caretaker Assessment


The aim of this study was to assess comparative behavior domain in patients with cochlear implants, using caretaker assessment. A prospective cross-sectional study was conducted. Of 106 patients with hearing loss and receiving cochlear implants were included along with their caretakers. The caretaker’ perspective questionnaire-22 was implemented covering emotions, education, and social relationships domain. A repeated measure ANOVA was used to statistical analysis. The implantation elicited a slight reduction in emotions scores domain as well as slight increase in social relationships scores from pre-cochlear implants to 12 months in all aged (6–10 years: − 10.7, 95%CI − 8.4 to 12.9; 4.2, 95%CI 3.0–5.5, 11–20 years: − 8.6, 95%CI − 6.7 to 10.5; 2.5, 95%CI 1.6–3.3, 21–59 years: − 6.8, 95%CI − 4.9 to 8.6; 2.0, 95%CI 1.3–2.7, and older 60 years: − 12.1, 95%CI − 9.5 to 14.6; 3.6, 95%CI 2.7–4.5, respectively). However, the education scores domain has slight increase only in aged 21–59 years group (1.8, 95%CI 0.7–2.8). A long-term after cochlear implants (12 months), but not after only 6 months elicits a statistically significant increase the social relationships scores and the reduction in negative emotions scores in all aged at implantation. However, the education scores have slight increase only in aged 21–59.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.


  1. 1.

    Carlson ML, Driscoll CL, Gifford RH, McMenomey SO (2012) Cochlear implantation: current and future device options. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 45(1):221–248

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Cosetti MK, Waltzman SB (2011) Cochlear implants: current status and future potential. Expert Rev Med Devices 8(3):389–401

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Marangos N, Laszig R (1998) Cochlear implants. Prosthetic management of deafness at the turn of the century. HNO 46(1):12–26

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Holt RF, Kirk KI, Hay-McCutcheon M (2011) Assessing multimodal spoken word-in-sentence recognition in children with normal hearing and children with cochlear implants. J Speech Lang Hear Res 54(2):632–657.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Holden LK, Finley CC, Firszt JB, Holden TA, Brenner C, Potts LG, Gotter BD, Vanderhoof SS, Mispagel K, Heydebrand G, Skinner MW (2013) Factors affecting open-set word recognition in adults with cochlear implants. Ear Hear 34(3):342–360.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Yorgun M, Surmelioglu O, Tuncer U, Tarkan O, Ozdemir S, Cekic E, Cetik F, Kiroglu M (2015) Quality of life in pediatric cochlear implantations. J Int Adv Otol 11(3):218–221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Colletti L, Shannon RV, Colletti V (2014) The development of auditory perception in children after auditory brainstem implantation. Audiol Neurotol 19(6):386–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Hashemi SB, Monshizadeh L (2016) Comparison of auditory perception in cochlear implanted children with and without additional disabilities. Iran J Med Sci 41(3):186–190

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Fortunato-Tavares T, Befi-Lopes D, Bento RF, Andrade CR (2012) Children with cochlear implants: communication skills and quality of life. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol 78(1):15–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Volleth N, Hast A, Lehmann EK, Hoppe U (2018) Subjective improvement of hearing through cochlear implantation. HNO 22(10):018–0529

    Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Contrera KJ, Betz J, Li L, Blake CR, Sung YK, Choi JS, Lin FR (2016) Quality of life after intervention with a cochlear implant or hearing aid. Laryngoscope 126(9):2110–2115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Brüggemann P, Szczepek AJ, Klee K, Gräbel S, Mazurek B, Olze H (2017) In patients undergoing cochlear implantation, psychological burden affects tinnitus and the overall outcome of auditory rehabilitation. Front Hum Neurosci 11:226.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Olze H, Knopke S, Grabel S, Szczepek AJ (2016) Rapid positive influence of cochlear implantation on the quality of life in adults 70 years and older. Audiol Neurootol 1:43–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Looi V, Lee ZZ, Loo JH (2016) Hearing-related quality of life outcomes for Singaporean children using hearing aids or cochlear implants. Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis 133(1):3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    StataCorp (2013) Stata statistical software. Release 13 edn. StataCorp LP, College Station

    Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Wiefferink CH, Rieffe C, Ketelaar L, De Raeve L, Frijns JH (2013) Emotion understanding in deaf children with a cochlear implant. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ 18(2):175–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Punch R, Hyde M (2011) Social participation of children and adolescents with cochlear implants: a qualitative analysis of parent, teacher, and child interviews. J Deaf Stud Deaf Educ 16(4):474–493

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Mikic B, Miric D, Nikolic-Mikic M, Ostojic S, Asanovic M (2014) Age at implantation and auditory memory in cochlear implanted children. Cochlear Implants Int 15(1):000000000191

    Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Bruijnzeel H, Ziylan F, Stegeman I, Topsakal V, Grolman W (2016) A systematic review to define the speech and language benefit of early (< 12 months) pediatric cochlear implantation. Audiol Neurootol 21(2):113–126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Bollard PM, Chute PM, Popp A, Parisier SC (1999) Specific language growth in young children using the CLARION cochlear implant. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol Suppl 177:119–123

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Razafimahefa-Raoelina T, Farinetti A, Nicollas R, Triglia JM, Roman S, Anderson L (2016) Self- and parental assessment of quality of life in child cochlear implant bearers. Eur Ann Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Dis 133(1):31–35

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


The authors are grateful to all the patients and families who kindly participated in this study. The strategic wisdom and research institute, and the research faculty of medicine, Srinakharinwirot University for their kindness supporting, time and assistance during the study. The authors wish to thank the MSMC in approval a grant to J.S.


This study has received financial support from the MSMC (Grant Number 606/2015).

Author information




JS wrote the proposal to apply a grant, designed the study, screened and examined all the recruited subjects, researched data, and reviewed the manuscript. KK Analyzed data and performed the statistical analysis and wrote the manuscript. Both of JS and KK are the guarantor of this work and, as such, had full access to all the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jarinratn Sirirattawan.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 26 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sirirattawan, J., Khuancharee, K. Measures of Comparative Behavior in Hearing Loss Patients with Cochlear Implant: Caretaker Assessment. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 71, 1147–1152 (2019).

Download citation


  • Caretaker assessment
  • Cochlear implant
  • Emotions scores
  • Education scores
  • Social relationships scores