Comment on Hall et al. (2017), "How to Choose Between Measures of Tinnitus Loudness for Clinical Research? A Report on the Reliability and Validity of an Investigator-Administered Test and a Patient-Reported Measure Using Baseline Data Collected in a Phase IIa Drug Trial".

PURPOSE: The purpose of this letter, in response to Hall, Mehta, and Fackrell (2017), is to provide important knowledge about methodology and statistical issues in assessing the reliability and validity of an audiologist-administered tinnitus loudness matching test and a patient-reported tinnitus loudness rating.

METHOD: The author uses reference textbooks and published articles regarding scientific assessment of the validity and reliability of a clinical test to discuss the statistical test and the methodological approach in assessing validity and reliability in clinical research.

RESULTS: Depending on the type of the variable (qualitative or quantitative), well-known statistical tests can be applied to assess reliability and validity. The qualitative variables of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, false positive and false negative rates, likelihood ratio positive and likelihood ratio negative, as well as odds ratio (i.e., ratio of true to false results), are the most appropriate estimates to evaluate validity of a test compared to a gold standard. In the case of quantitative variables, depending on distribution of the variable, Pearson r or Spearman rho can be applied.

CONCLUSION: Diagnostic accuracy (validity) and diagnostic precision (reliability or agreement) are two completely different methodological issues. Depending on the type of the variable (qualitative or quantitative), well-known statistical tests can be applied to assess validity.