PURPOSE: To evaluate validity and reliability of Lithuanian version of Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation Scale (L-NOSE), designed for the assessment of nasal obstruction. METHODS: Cross-cultural adaptation of L-NOSE was accomplished according to generally accepted methodology. L- NOSE was tested for its reliability, validity, and responsiveness in the group of 50 septoplasty patients and 100 healthy volunteers' controls. RESULTS: L- NOSE showed good internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha coefficient 0.796 for test, 0.791 for retest, 0.792 for post-operative group, and 0.817 for control group) scores and high test-retest reliability (r = 0.94, p < 0.01) scores. In patients' group, positive moderate correlations between L-NOSE scores and Sino-nasal Outcome Test-22 logically similar domain scores were found, thus indicating good convergent construct validity. L-NOSE scores for control subjects were generally lower than for patients with nasal obstruction (p < 0.001), thereby indicating good discriminant validity of questionnaire. The exploratory factor analysis confirmed one-factor structure of questionnaire. The component matrix of L-NOSE ranged from 0.667 to 0.781 (KMO = 0.754, p < 0.0001). The mean L-NOSE score improved from 58.4 ± 18.2 points to 11.1 ± 9.5 points after septoplasty (p < 0.0001), indicating good responsiveness of questionnaire. CONCLUSION: The L-NOSE questionnaire is a valid instrument with satisfactory reliability, validity, and responsiveness.
PURPOSE: To evaluate validity and reliability of Lithuanian version of Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation Scale (L-NOSE), designed for the assessment of nasal obstruction. METHODS: Cross-cultural adaptation of L-NOSE was accomplished according to generally accepted methodology. L- NOSE was tested for its reliability, validity, and responsiveness in the group of 50 septoplasty patients and 100 healthy volunteers' controls. RESULTS: L- NOSE showed good internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha coefficient 0.796 for test, 0.791 for retest, 0.792 for post-operative group, and 0.817 for control group) scores and high test-retest reliability (r = 0.94, p < 0.01) scores. In patients' group, positive moderate correlations between L-NOSE scores and Sino-nasal Outcome Test-22 logically similar domain scores were found, thus indicating good convergent construct validity. L-NOSE scores for control subjects were generally lower than for patients with nasal obstruction (p < 0.001), thereby indicating good discriminant validity of questionnaire. The exploratory factor analysis confirmed one-factor structure of questionnaire. The component matrix of L-NOSE ranged from 0.667 to 0.781 (KMO = 0.754, p < 0.0001). The mean L-NOSE score improved from 58.4 ± 18.2 points to 11.1 ± 9.5 points after septoplasty (p < 0.0001), indicating good responsiveness of questionnaire. CONCLUSION: The L-NOSE questionnaire is a valid instrument with satisfactory reliability, validity, and responsiveness.
Entities:
Keywords:
NOSE scale; Nasal obstruction; Septoplasty; Validation