Vinaya Manchaiah1,2,3, Sarah Granberg4,5, Vibhu Grover1, Gabrielle H Saunders6, Deborah Ann Hall7,8,9,10. 1. a Department of Speech and Hearing Sciences , Lamar University , Beaumont , TX , USA. 2. b Department of Speech and Hearing , School of Allied Health Sciences, Manipal University , Manipal , India. 3. c Audiology India , Mysore , India. 4. d The Swedish Institute for Disability Research (SIDR), School of Health Sciences , Örebro University , Örebro , Sweden. 5. e Audiological Research Center , Örebro University Hospital , Örebro , Sweden. 6. f Eriksholm Research Center , Snekkersten , Denmark. 7. g NIHR Biomedical Research Centre , University of Nottingham , Nottingham , UK. 8. h Hearing Sciences, Division of Clinical Neuroscience School of Medicine , University of Nottingham , Nottingham , UK. 9. i Queens Medical Centre , Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust , Nottingham , UK. 10. j University of Nottingham Malaysia , Semenyih , Malaysia.
Abstract
Objective: This study evaluates the content validity (i.e. domains assessed) and readability levels of patient-reported questionnaire instruments using internationally recognised procedures and tools. Design: A review of the literature to identify candidate instruments and a synthesis of information including mapping extracted items onto the World Health Organisation's - International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (WHO-ICF) and estimating readability. Study sample: 14 patient-reported questionnaire instruments. Results: In general, item content focussed on body function and on activity limitations and participation restrictions, with less emphasis on environmental and personal factors and with different emphases across instruments. Many items did not clearly map onto any of the WHO-ICF categories (i.e. not coded items ranged from 3.7 to 39.1% across the 14 questionnaires). All 14 instruments exceeded the sixth-grade reading level when calculated according to the FORCAST formula which is appropriate for assessing a non-narrative text. Conclusions: Clinical assessment of hearing disability is only as comprehensive as the items covered by the chosen measurement instrument. Our findings confirmed the diversity of domains covered by hearing disability instruments and gaps in assessment. Some concern is raised about whether the item content is appropriate for those respondents with poor literacy.
Objective: This study evaluates the content validity (i.e. domains assessed) and readability levels of patient-reported questionnaire instruments using internationally recognised procedures and tools. Design: A review of the literature to identify candidate instruments and a synthesis of information including mapping extracted items onto the World Health Organisation's - International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (WHO-ICF) and estimating readability. Study sample: 14 patient-reported questionnaire instruments. Results: In general, item content focussed on body function and on activity limitations and participation restrictions, with less emphasis on environmental and personal factors and with different emphases across instruments. Many items did not clearly map onto any of the WHO-ICF categories (i.e. not coded items ranged from 3.7 to 39.1% across the 14 questionnaires). All 14 instruments exceeded the sixth-grade reading level when calculated according to the FORCAST formula which is appropriate for assessing a non-narrative text. Conclusions: Clinical assessment of hearing disability is only as comprehensive as the items covered by the chosen measurement instrument. Our findings confirmed the diversity of domains covered by hearing disability instruments and gaps in assessment. Some concern is raised about whether the item content is appropriate for those respondents with poor literacy.
Authors: Gitte Keidser; Graham Naylor; Douglas S Brungart; Andreas Caduff; Jennifer Campos; Simon Carlile; Mark G Carpenter; Giso Grimm; Volker Hohmann; Inga Holube; Stefan Launer; Thomas Lunner; Ravish Mehra; Frances Rapport; Malcolm Slaney; Karolina Smeds Journal: Ear Hear Date: 2020 Nov/Dec Impact factor: 3.562