Adaptation of Functioning After Pediatric Cochlear Implantation (FAPCI) into Hindi Language

  • Md. Noorain AlamEmail author
  • Sanjay Munjal
  • Naresh Panda
Original Article


FAPCI is a parent/caregiver reporting questionnaire, which evaluates the communication performance of pre-school children with cochlear implants in the age range of 2–5 years, using behavioral examples of children’s daily activities. Tools for the objective and effective measurement of communication for cochlear implanted Indian children in Hindi language are lacking. The primary aim of the study was to adapt American English version of FAPCI into the Hindi language. With a secondary aim to find out the communication functioning of Cochlear implanted children by administering FAPCI (HN) and comparing the findings with children with normal hearing. The FAPCI was translated to Hindi using the forward–backward procedure. The FAPCI (HN) was then administered to the parents of children with NH (n = 35) and CI (n = 44), 2–9 years of age. Internal consistency was checked using Cronbach’s alpha. Other statistical analysis included Bartlett’s test of sphericity, factor loading, Wilcoxon test and t test. During adaptation few items were modified and one item was removed which contained “inversion question” not used in Hindi language. The Hindi version of FAPCI showed excellent internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha > 0.90). The split-half coefficient for the first half of the data was equal to 0.96 and for the second half was equal to 0.95. The CI group had significantly lower FAPCI scores (61.14 ± 21.49) than the NH group (101.43 ± 9.24) (p < 0.05, Wilcoxon test). FAPCI-Hindi can be used to measure the communicative functioning of cochlear implanted children in Indian population and results may be used as a guideline to revise the speech and language therapy plans to maximize the cochlear implant benefits.


Cochlear implant Functional communication Adaptation Hindi Validation Internal consistency 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee (PGIMER Ethical Committee) and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Supplementary material

12070_2019_1686_MOESM1_ESM.docx (36 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 35 kb)


  1. 1.
    The global burden of disease: 2004 update. World Health Organization, Geneva, 2008. Accessed 15 June 2017
  2. 2.
    National Programme for Prevention and Control of Deafness (NPPCD). Accessed 15 June 2017
  3. 3.
    Houston DM, Pisoni DB, Kirk KI, Ying EA, Miyamoto RT (2003) Speech perception skills of deaf infants following cochlear implantation: a first report. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 67(5):479–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Waltzman SB, Cohen NL, Green J, Roland JT (2002) Long-term effects of cochlear implants in children. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 126:505–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Vidas S, Hassan R, Parnes LS (1992) Real-life performance considerations of four pediatric multi-channel cochlear implant recipients. J Otolaryngol 21(6):387–393PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Moog JGA (1990) Early speech perception test battery. Central Institute of the Deaf, St. LouisGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Reynell J, Gruber C (1990) Reynell developmental language scales. Western Psychological Services, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lin FR, Wang NY, Fink NE, Quittner AL, Eisenberg LS, Tobey EA et al (2008) Assessing the use of speech and language measures in relation to parental perceptions of development after early cochlear implantation. Otol Neurotol 29(2):208–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lin FR, Ceh K, Bervinchak D, Riley A, Miech R, Niparko JK (2007) Development of a communicative performance scale for pediatric cochlear implantation. Ear Hear 28(5):703–712CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cronbach LJ (1951) Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of test. Psychometrika 16:297–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Richter B, Eissele S, Laszig R, Löhle E (2002) Receptive and expressive language skills of 106 children with a minimum of 2 years’ experience in hearing with a cochlear implant. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 64:111–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nicholas JG, Geers AE (2007) Will they catch up? The role of age at cochlear implantation in the spoken language development of children with severe-profound hearing loss. J Speech Lang Hear Res 50(4):1048–1062CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schramm B, Bohnert A, Keilmann A (2010) Auditory, speech and language development in young children with cochlear implants compared with children with normal hearing. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 74(7):812–819CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nagapoornima P, Ramesh A, Srilakshmi SL, Rao S, Patricia PL, Gore M et al (2007) Universal hearing screening. Indian J Pediatr 74:545–549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Garg S, Singh R, Khurana D (2015) Infant hearing screening in India: current status and way forward. Int J Prev Med 6:113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    World Health Organization (2009) State of hearing and ear care in the South East Asia Region. WHO Regional Office for South East Asia. WHO-SEARO. SEA/Deaf/9. Accessed 25 June 2017
  17. 17.
    Grugel L, Streicher B, Lang-Roth R, Walger M, von Wedel H, Meister H (2009) Development of a German version of the functioning after pediatric cochlear implantation (FAPCI) questionnaire. HNO 57:678–684CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association of Otolaryngologists of India 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ENT DepartmentPGIMERChandigarhIndia

Personalised recommendations