International journal of audiology · 2018
Further validation of the Chinese (Mandarin) Tinnitus Handicap Inventory: comparison between patient-reported and clinician-interviewed outcomes.
СтатьяВалидационное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Wu Di, Zheng Yun, Chen Zhiji, Ma Ying, Lu Tao
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of the Chinese (Mandarin) Tinnitus Handicap Inventory (THI-C) by comparing patient-reported and clinician-interviewed outcomes and to raise awareness of the difficulties in using adapted international test measures.
DESIGN: All patients were required to first complete the THI-C independently. Then, clinicians conducted a face-to-face interview, explained the exact meaning of each item and re-evaluated every item based on the patient's descriptions. During this process, patients were encouraged to make comments about each item. Both the self-administered and clinician-interviewed scores were recorded and compared.
STUDY SAMPLE: A total of 178 patients who reported tinnitus as a primary complaint were included.
RESULTS: Among these patients, 88 (49.4%) completed the questionnaire independently, while 79 (44.4%) patients experienced difficulty in understanding at least one item. The difference between the self-administered and clinician-interviewed scores was statistically significant (p < 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: The feasibility of the THI-C is limited unless a revision is made. Follow-up studies are needed for validation when a newly translated self-administered questionnaire is put into use. In addition to semantic equivalence and idiomatic equivalence, experiential equivalence and conceptual equivalence should also be fully considered during the translation process.
DESIGN: All patients were required to first complete the THI-C independently. Then, clinicians conducted a face-to-face interview, explained the exact meaning of each item and re-evaluated every item based on the patient's descriptions. During this process, patients were encouraged to make comments about each item. Both the self-administered and clinician-interviewed scores were recorded and compared.
STUDY SAMPLE: A total of 178 patients who reported tinnitus as a primary complaint were included.
RESULTS: Among these patients, 88 (49.4%) completed the questionnaire independently, while 79 (44.4%) patients experienced difficulty in understanding at least one item. The difference between the self-administered and clinician-interviewed scores was statistically significant (p < 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: The feasibility of the THI-C is limited unless a revision is made. Follow-up studies are needed for validation when a newly translated self-administered questionnaire is put into use. In addition to semantic equivalence and idiomatic equivalence, experiential equivalence and conceptual equivalence should also be fully considered during the translation process.