[Reliability and validity analysis of simplified Chinese version of QOL questionnaire of olfactory disorders].

Objective:To cross-culturally translate the questionnaire of olfactory disorders(QOD)into a simplified Chinese version, and evaluate its reliability and validity in clinical.Method:A simplified Chinese version of the QOD was evaluated in test-retest reliability, split-half reliability and internal consistency.Then it was evaluated in validity test including content validity, criterion-related validity, responsibility. Criterion-related validity was using the medical outcome study's 36-item short rorm health survey(SF-36) and the World Health Organization quality of life-brief (WHOQOL-BREF) for comparison. Result: A total of 239 patients with olfactory dysfunction were enrolled and tested, in which 195 patients completed all three surveys(QOD, SF-36, WHOQOL-BREF). The test-retest reliabilities of the QOD-parosmia statements(QOD-P), QOD-quality of life(QOD-QoL), and the QOD-visual simulation(QOD-VAS)sections were 0.799(P<0.01),0.781(P<0.01),0.488(P<0.01), respectively, and the Cronbach' s α coefficients reliability were 0.477,0.812,0.889,respectively.The split-half reliability of QOD-QoL was 0.89. There was no correlation between the QOD-P section and the SF-36, but there were statistically significant correlations between the QOD-QoL and QOD-VAS sections with the SF-36. There was no correlation between the QOD-P section and the WHOQOL-BREF, but there were statistically significant correlations between the QOD-QoL and QOD-VAS sections with the SF-36 in most sections.
Conclusion: The simplified Chinese version of the QOD was testified to be a reliable and valid questionnaire for evaluating patients with olfactory dysfunction living in mainland of China.The QOD-P section needs further modifications to properly adapt patients with Chinese cultural and knowledge background. Copyright© by the Editorial Department of Journal of Clinical Otorhinolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery.