Table 3.
FT results according to groups.
| Groups | G+ | G− | CG | Kruskal–Wallis test (p) | Tukey's multiple comparisons (p) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SOT1 FT | Median (min–max) | 94.3 (91.3–95.7) | 93 (92–97.7) | 96 (92.3–97) | 0.172 | G+ = G− = CG |
| SOT2 FT | Median (min–max) | 92.7 (86.7–94.3) | 90 (88–96) | 94.7 (90–97.7) | 0.088 | G+ = G− = CG |
| SOT3 FT | Median (min–max) | 91 (79.7–95.3) | 90 (82.7–91.3) | 94 (93.3–97) | 0.018a | G+ = G− < CG (0.036b) |
| SOT4 FT | Median (min–max) | 68.7 (55.3–83) | 81.7 (29–85.7) | 87.7 (83.7–93.3) | 0.003a | G+ = G− < CG (0.039b) |
| SOT5 FT | Median (min–max) | 47.7 (0–61.3) | 0 (0–25.7) | 68.7 (59.3–76) | 0.001a | G+ = G− < CG (<0.001b) |
| SOT6 FT | Median (min–max) | 4.3 (0–66.7) | 0 (0–7.3) | 66 (20–82.3) | 0.003a | G+ = G− < CG (0.001b) |
| CES FT | Median (min–max) | 58 (42–77) | 51 (37–58) | 81 (69–88) | 0.002a | G+ = G− < CG (0.001b) |
| n | 9 | 5 | 7 |
G+, cochlear implant users with good hearing performance; G−, cochlear implant users with poor hearing performance; CG, control group; min–max, minimum–maximum, CDP, computerized dynamic posturography; SOT, sensory organization test; CES, composite score; FT, first test.
a
Statistical significance level.
b
CG showed significant higher scores as compared to G+ and G− in SOT3, SOT4, SOT5, SOT6, and CES conditions.