Skip Navigation


Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education Advance Access originally published online on June 2, 2005
The Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 2005 10(4):330-356; doi:10.1093/deafed/eni027
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
10/4/330    most recent
eni027v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Nunes, T.
Right arrow Articles by Ilicak, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Nunes, T.
Right arrow Articles by Ilicak, S.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2005. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oupjournals.org

Empirical Articles

Validation of a Parent Outcome Questionnaire From Pediatric Cochlear Implantation

Terezinha Nunes, Ursula Pretzlik and Selin Ilicak

Oxford Brookes University

This paper analyzes the reliability and validity of a questionnaire designed by Archbold, Lutman, Gregory, O'Neil, and Nikolpoulos (2002) for the assessment of pediatric cochlear implantation. Parents of 61 youngsters (age range 5 to 16 years), who had the implant for at least 3 years, responded to the questionnaire and to an interview. The alpha reliability of the 11 questionnaire scales varied between .41 and .74. Content validity was assessed by comparison with parents' responses to an interview. In general, there was agreement between parents' concerns and views expressed in the interview and as assessed by the questionnaire. However, extra issues were identified in the interview, which suggest the need for increasing the breadth of the questionnaire. Criterion validity was assessed by identifying contrasting cases, with very low or very high scores in each scale, and analyzing the descriptions obtained in the interviews. For nine scales this analysis provided support for the validity of the questionnaire; two scales did not produce positive results. Correlations with interview scores were calculated for only four scales: two were positive and significant whereas two were not significant. A factor analysis of the questionnaire scales identified four components, interpreted as the child's functioning in social situations, attitudes to the process of implantation, support required in the long term, and effective use of the implant. Suggestions for further research and descriptive comments provided by parents are included.

1 One researcher has a Masters' degree in Child Development and the second is a teacher with vast experience in working with parents; both have ample research experience.

Correspondence should be sent to Terezinha Nunes, Department of Psychology, Oxford Brookes University, Gipsy Lane, OX3 0BP, United Kingdom (e-mail: tnunes{at}brookes.ac.uk).

Received March 11, 2003; revised January 8, 2005; accepted February 10, 2005


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Communication Disorders QuarterlyHome page
C. W. Jackson, R. J. Traub, and A. P. Turnbull
Parents' Experiences With Childhood Deafness: Implications for Family-Centered Services
Communication Disorders Quarterly, February 1, 2008; 29(2): 82 - 98.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
J Deaf Stud Deaf EducHome page
A. Zaidman-Zait
Parenting a Child With a Cochlear Implant: A Critical Incident Study
J. Deaf Stud. Deaf Educ., April 1, 2007; 12(2): 221 - 241.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.