Cargando…

The Otology Questionnaire Amsterdam: A generic patient‐reported outcome measure about the severity and impact of ear complaints. Validation, reliability and responsiveness

OBJECTIVE: To examine the construct validity, reliability and responsiveness of the Otology Questionnaire Amsterdam (OQUA). DESIGN: Multicentre, longitudinal study in 2 separate cohorts of patients visiting an ENT surgeon via an online survey programme. SETTING: Tertiary ENT clinics. PARTICIPANTS: C...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kraak, Jeroen T., van Dam, Tom F., van Leeuwen, Lisette M., Kramer, Sophia E., Merkus, Paul
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7317857/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32336029
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/coa.13545
_version_ 1783550723107061760
author Kraak, Jeroen T.
van Dam, Tom F.
van Leeuwen, Lisette M.
Kramer, Sophia E.
Merkus, Paul
author_facet Kraak, Jeroen T.
van Dam, Tom F.
van Leeuwen, Lisette M.
Kramer, Sophia E.
Merkus, Paul
author_sort Kraak, Jeroen T.
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To examine the construct validity, reliability and responsiveness of the Otology Questionnaire Amsterdam (OQUA). DESIGN: Multicentre, longitudinal study in 2 separate cohorts of patients visiting an ENT surgeon via an online survey programme. SETTING: Tertiary ENT clinics. PARTICIPANTS: Cohort 1 consisted of patients at their first visit at an ENT outpatient clinic with an ear complaint. Cohort 2 consisted of patients who underwent surgery, with a 3‐month follow‐up post‐surgery. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Construct validity: Hypothesis testing, internal consistency and inter‐item correlation. Reliability: Test‐retest reliability. The construct approach was used for assessing responsiveness. Hypotheses were formulated based on the association between the OQUA and Glasgow Health Status Inventory (GHSI) or Global Rating Scale (GRS). RESULTS: Construct validity: The correlation between the individual items in the impact domain ranged from 0.424 to 0.737. Confirmatory factor analysis showed a good fit. As expected, the OQUA impact showed strong relationships with GHSI total and general scale. Reliability: The test‐retest reliability coefficient ranged from 0.541 to 0.838. Responsiveness: All hypotheses were conformed. As expected, the change score of the OQUA showed good correlation between OQUA impact and GHSI and moderate correlation between the GRS and OQUA complaints. CONCLUSION: The OQUA has 8 complaint domains (earache, pressure sensation, itching, tinnitus, hearing loss, ear discharge, loss of taste and dizziness) and 1 impact domain. Each domain results in one score of 0‐100. The OQUA shows good results for construct validity, (test‐retest) reliability and responsiveness, supporting the potential benefit for the patient with an ear complaint visiting the ENT surgeon. The extensive validation furthermore confirms a certified generic otology PROM with an impact and a complaints' part, to be used in different types of otologic interventions and patient groups.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7317857
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-73178572020-06-29 The Otology Questionnaire Amsterdam: A generic patient‐reported outcome measure about the severity and impact of ear complaints. Validation, reliability and responsiveness Kraak, Jeroen T. van Dam, Tom F. van Leeuwen, Lisette M. Kramer, Sophia E. Merkus, Paul Clin Otolaryngol Original Articles OBJECTIVE: To examine the construct validity, reliability and responsiveness of the Otology Questionnaire Amsterdam (OQUA). DESIGN: Multicentre, longitudinal study in 2 separate cohorts of patients visiting an ENT surgeon via an online survey programme. SETTING: Tertiary ENT clinics. PARTICIPANTS: Cohort 1 consisted of patients at their first visit at an ENT outpatient clinic with an ear complaint. Cohort 2 consisted of patients who underwent surgery, with a 3‐month follow‐up post‐surgery. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Construct validity: Hypothesis testing, internal consistency and inter‐item correlation. Reliability: Test‐retest reliability. The construct approach was used for assessing responsiveness. Hypotheses were formulated based on the association between the OQUA and Glasgow Health Status Inventory (GHSI) or Global Rating Scale (GRS). RESULTS: Construct validity: The correlation between the individual items in the impact domain ranged from 0.424 to 0.737. Confirmatory factor analysis showed a good fit. As expected, the OQUA impact showed strong relationships with GHSI total and general scale. Reliability: The test‐retest reliability coefficient ranged from 0.541 to 0.838. Responsiveness: All hypotheses were conformed. As expected, the change score of the OQUA showed good correlation between OQUA impact and GHSI and moderate correlation between the GRS and OQUA complaints. CONCLUSION: The OQUA has 8 complaint domains (earache, pressure sensation, itching, tinnitus, hearing loss, ear discharge, loss of taste and dizziness) and 1 impact domain. Each domain results in one score of 0‐100. The OQUA shows good results for construct validity, (test‐retest) reliability and responsiveness, supporting the potential benefit for the patient with an ear complaint visiting the ENT surgeon. The extensive validation furthermore confirms a certified generic otology PROM with an impact and a complaints' part, to be used in different types of otologic interventions and patient groups. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2020-05-08 2020-07 /pmc/articles/PMC7317857/ /pubmed/32336029 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/coa.13545 Text en © 2020 The Authors. Clinical Otolaryngology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
spellingShingle Original Articles
Kraak, Jeroen T.
van Dam, Tom F.
van Leeuwen, Lisette M.
Kramer, Sophia E.
Merkus, Paul
The Otology Questionnaire Amsterdam: A generic patient‐reported outcome measure about the severity and impact of ear complaints. Validation, reliability and responsiveness
title The Otology Questionnaire Amsterdam: A generic patient‐reported outcome measure about the severity and impact of ear complaints. Validation, reliability and responsiveness
title_full The Otology Questionnaire Amsterdam: A generic patient‐reported outcome measure about the severity and impact of ear complaints. Validation, reliability and responsiveness
title_fullStr The Otology Questionnaire Amsterdam: A generic patient‐reported outcome measure about the severity and impact of ear complaints. Validation, reliability and responsiveness
title_full_unstemmed The Otology Questionnaire Amsterdam: A generic patient‐reported outcome measure about the severity and impact of ear complaints. Validation, reliability and responsiveness
title_short The Otology Questionnaire Amsterdam: A generic patient‐reported outcome measure about the severity and impact of ear complaints. Validation, reliability and responsiveness
title_sort otology questionnaire amsterdam: a generic patient‐reported outcome measure about the severity and impact of ear complaints. validation, reliability and responsiveness
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7317857/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32336029
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/coa.13545
work_keys_str_mv AT kraakjeroent theotologyquestionnaireamsterdamagenericpatientreportedoutcomemeasureabouttheseverityandimpactofearcomplaintsvalidationreliabilityandresponsiveness
AT vandamtomf theotologyquestionnaireamsterdamagenericpatientreportedoutcomemeasureabouttheseverityandimpactofearcomplaintsvalidationreliabilityandresponsiveness
AT vanleeuwenlisettem theotologyquestionnaireamsterdamagenericpatientreportedoutcomemeasureabouttheseverityandimpactofearcomplaintsvalidationreliabilityandresponsiveness
AT kramersophiae theotologyquestionnaireamsterdamagenericpatientreportedoutcomemeasureabouttheseverityandimpactofearcomplaintsvalidationreliabilityandresponsiveness
AT merkuspaul theotologyquestionnaireamsterdamagenericpatientreportedoutcomemeasureabouttheseverityandimpactofearcomplaintsvalidationreliabilityandresponsiveness
AT kraakjeroent otologyquestionnaireamsterdamagenericpatientreportedoutcomemeasureabouttheseverityandimpactofearcomplaintsvalidationreliabilityandresponsiveness
AT vandamtomf otologyquestionnaireamsterdamagenericpatientreportedoutcomemeasureabouttheseverityandimpactofearcomplaintsvalidationreliabilityandresponsiveness
AT vanleeuwenlisettem otologyquestionnaireamsterdamagenericpatientreportedoutcomemeasureabouttheseverityandimpactofearcomplaintsvalidationreliabilityandresponsiveness
AT kramersophiae otologyquestionnaireamsterdamagenericpatientreportedoutcomemeasureabouttheseverityandimpactofearcomplaintsvalidationreliabilityandresponsiveness
AT merkuspaul otologyquestionnaireamsterdamagenericpatientreportedoutcomemeasureabouttheseverityandimpactofearcomplaintsvalidationreliabilityandresponsiveness