R M Cox1, G C Alexander. 1. Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Memphis, Tennessee, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To cross-validate the psychometric characteristics of the Satisfaction with Amplification in Daily Life (SADL) questionnaire (Cox & Alexander, 1999), and to explore the SADL's construct validity. DESIGN: Thirteen private practice Audiology clinics each distributed SADL questionnaires, by mail, to 20 adults who had recently obtained hearing aids. The completed questionnaires were returned to a central site and subject anonymity was assured. There were 196 usable responses. RESULTS: Psychometric characteristics of the items were found to be very similar to those reported previously. Thus, the internal validity of the instrument was strongly supported. The assumption that the SADL quantifies satisfaction by assessing its components was evaluated by examining the relationship between SADL scores and scores on a traditional single-item satisfaction measure. A logical and statistically significant relationship was seen between the two measures, thereby supporting the construct validity of both types of data. For private-pay clients, satisfaction scores were very similar to the interim norms published by Cox and Alexander (1999). However, clients whose hearing aids were partly or fully purchased by insurance or benefits programs tended to be more satisfied than interim norms for third-party pay clients derived 5 yr ago. For most types of clients, there was a tendency toward more satisfaction in the Negative Features subscale than observed in our previous research. CONCLUSIONS: Both construct and internal validity of the SADL questionnaire were supported by this research. The previously published interim norms appear to be mostly appropriate for private-pay clients, but might require adjustment in the Negative Features subscale. Further research is needed to explore the relationship between satisfaction and device purchase issues (third-party versus private pay).
OBJECTIVE: To cross-validate the psychometric characteristics of the Satisfaction with Amplification in Daily Life (SADL) questionnaire (Cox & Alexander, 1999), and to explore the SADL's construct validity. DESIGN: Thirteen private practice Audiology clinics each distributed SADL questionnaires, by mail, to 20 adults who had recently obtained hearing aids. The completed questionnaires were returned to a central site and subject anonymity was assured. There were 196 usable responses. RESULTS: Psychometric characteristics of the items were found to be very similar to those reported previously. Thus, the internal validity of the instrument was strongly supported. The assumption that the SADL quantifies satisfaction by assessing its components was evaluated by examining the relationship between SADL scores and scores on a traditional single-item satisfaction measure. A logical and statistically significant relationship was seen between the two measures, thereby supporting the construct validity of both types of data. For private-pay clients, satisfaction scores were very similar to the interim norms published by Cox and Alexander (1999). However, clients whose hearing aids were partly or fully purchased by insurance or benefits programs tended to be more satisfied than interim norms for third-party pay clients derived 5 yr ago. For most types of clients, there was a tendency toward more satisfaction in the Negative Features subscale than observed in our previous research. CONCLUSIONS: Both construct and internal validity of the SADL questionnaire were supported by this research. The previously published interim norms appear to be mostly appropriate for private-pay clients, but might require adjustment in the Negative Features subscale. Further research is needed to explore the relationship between satisfaction and device purchase issues (third-party versus private pay).
Authors: Theodore R McRackan; Craig A Velozo; Meredith A Holcomb; Elizabeth L Camposeo; Jonathan L Hatch; Ted A Meyer; Paul R Lambert; Cathy L Melvin; Judy R Dubno Journal: JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2017-10-01 Impact factor: 6.223
Authors: Margaret P Collins; Pamela E Souza; Chuan-Fen Liu; Patrick J Heagerty; Dagmar Amtmann; Bevan Yueh Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2009-12-15 Impact factor: 2.655