Seyed Alireza Alavi Dehkordi1, Maryam Ramezani1*, Mohanna Javanbakht1 2, Mohsen Vahedi
,
Abstract
Background and Aim: Hearing loss often coexists with various comorbidities and is commonly accompanied by tinnitus. Patients frequently report both tinnitus and hearing difficulties, posing challenges in distinguishing
between the two complaints. This study aimed to assess the validity and reliability of the Persian version of the Tinnitus and Hearing Survey (THS) for distinguishing between tinnitus and hearing problems.
Methods: A psychometric study involved 100 participants aged 18-60, categorized into four groups based on hearing status and tinnitus presence. The Persian translation of a questionnaire underwent content and face validity assessments. Convergent validity for tinnitus and sound tolerance sections was evaluated using the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory (THI) and Hyperacusis Questionnaire (HQ) respectively, while pure-tone average assessed hearing section validity. Construct validity was confirmed via confirmatory factor analysis, and internal consistency and test-retest reliability were assessed using Cronbach's alpha and ICC respectively.
Results: The Persian version had strong face and content validity, with Cronbach's alpha values of 0.82 and 0.90 for the tinnitus and hearing sections, respectively, and a value of 0.80 for the overall scale. The ICC values for the tinnitus, hearing, and sound tolerance sections were 0.8, 0.83, and 0.82 respectively. Convergent validity using the THI and HQ scores were reported 0.76 and 0.6, respectively, and the correlation value of the THS score with the PTA was 0.82. Confirmatory factor analysis confirmed a good 2-factor structure of the THS
Conclusion: The Persian THS is a valid and reliable tool for separating tinnitus from hearing problems in Persian-speaking people .
2. Helfer TM. Noise-induced hearing injuries, active component, U.S. Armed Forces, 2007-2010. Msmr. 2011;18(6):7-10.
3. Tunkel DE, Bauer CA, Sun GH, Rosenfeld RM, Chandrasekhar SS, Cunningham ER, Jr., et al. Clinical practice guideline: tinnitus. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2014;151(2 Suppl):S1-s40.
4. Sanchez TG, Medeiros ÍRTd, Levy CPD, Ramalho JdRO, Bento RF. Tinnitus in normally hearing patients: clinical aspects and repercussions. Revista Brasileira de Otorrinolaringologia. 2005;71:427-31.
5. Cantley LF, Galusha D, Cullen MR, Dixon-Ernst C, Tessier-Sherman B, Slade MD, et al. Does tinnitus, hearing asymmetry, or hearing loss predispose to occupational injury risk? International journal of audiology. 2015;54(sup1):S30-S6.
6. Zaugg T, Schechter M, Fausti S, Henry J, editors. Difficulties caused by patients’ misconceptions that hearing problems are due to tinnitus. Proceedings of the Seventh International Tinnitus Seminar; 2002: The University of Western Australia Crawley, Australia.
7. Henry JA, Griest S, Zaugg TL, Thielman E, Kaelin C, Galvez G, Carlson KF. Tinnitus and hearing survey: a screening tool to differentiate bothersome tinnitus from hearing difficulties. American journal of audiology. 2015;24(1):66-77.
8. Ware JE, Jr., Keller SD, Gandek B, Brazier JE, Sullivan M. Evaluating translations of health status questionnaires. Methods from the IQOLA project. International Quality of Life Assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1995;11(3):525-51.
9. Lynn MR. Determination and quantification of content validity. Nursing research. 1986;35(6):382-6.
10. Lawshe CH. A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel psychology. 1975;28(4):563-75.
11. Almanasreh E, Moles R, Chen TF. Evaluation of methods used for estimating content validity. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2019;15(2):214-21.
12. Guillemin F, Bombardier C, Beaton D. Cross-cultural adaptation of health-related quality of life measures: literature review and proposed guidelines. Journal of clinical epidemiology. 1993;46(12):1417-32.
13. Mahmoudian S, Shahmiri E, Rouzbahani M, Jafari Z, Keyhani M, Rahimi F, et al. Persian language version of the "Tinnitus Handicap Inventory": translation, standardization, validity and reliability. Int Tinnitus J. 2011;16(2):93-103.
14. Newman CW, Jacobson GP, Spitzer JB. Development of the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1996;122(2):143-8.
15. Javanbakht M, Seddigh-Hamidi P, Vahedi M. Persian Version of the Hyperacusis Questionnaire: The Translation Process, Psychometric Properties, and Diagnostic Criteria in Normal Hearing People. Iranian Rehabilitation Journal. 2023;21(1):65-72.
16. Khalfa S, Dubal S, Veuillet E, Perez-Diaz F, Jouvent R, Collet L. Psychometric normalization of a hyperacusis questionnaire. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec. 2002;64(6):436-42.
17. McDonald RP, Ho M-HR. Principles and practice in reporting structural equation analyses. Psychological methods. 2002;7(1):64.
18. Kline RB. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling: Guilford publications; 2023.
19. Byrne BM. Structural equation modeling with EQS and EQS/Windows: Basic concepts, applications, and programming: Sage; 1994.
20. Bentler PM. Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological bulletin. 1990;107(2):238.
21. Raj-Koziak D, Gos E, Rajchel J, Piłka A, Skarżyński H, Rostkowska J, Skarzynski PH. Tinnitus and Hearing Survey: a polish study of validity and reliability in a clinical population. Audiology and Neurotology. 2018;22(4-5):197-204.
22. Scheffer AR, Ferreira MC, Mondelli MFCG, editors. The applicability of the Tinnitus and Hearing Survey (THS) in the differentiation of tinnitus and hearing complaints. CoDAS; 2021: SciELO Brasil.
23. Newman CW, Sandridge SA, Jacobson GP. Assessing outcomes of tinnitus intervention. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology. 2014;25(01):076-105.
| Files | ||
| Issue | Articles in Press | |
| Section | Research Article(s) | |
| Keywords | ||
| Surveys and questionnaires tinnitus and hearing validity reliability | ||
| Rights and permissions | |
|
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
