Instruction of Persian version of “the needs of hearing-impaired children’s parents in auditory-verbal approach” questionnaire and determining its validity and reliability
Background and Aim: Concerning the important role of parents of hearing-impaired children in auditory-verbal therapy, this study mainly focused on preparing a Persian version of the “Parental needs questionnaire” and analyzing its validity and reliability.
Methods: First, the original English version of the questionnaire “the needs of hearing-impaired Children’s Parents in Auditory-Verbal Therapy” translated to Persian, based on the approved translation protocol of International Quality of Life Assessment by world health organization. Then, the Persian version presented to seven experts for validating the content and their feedbacks were applied into the questionnaire. Finally, the questionnaire presented to parents of 51 hearing-impaired children who attend in auditory-verbal therapy, and the collected results were analyzed statistically.
Results: The overall mean of content validity index in 32 items of the questionnaire was 0.87. The overall Cronbach’s alpha of this questionnaire was 0.86 in the test and 0.99 in the re-test phases.
Conclusion: Based on the obtained results, the Persian version of the questionnaire has a satisfactory content validity and reliability and could be used in clinics and medical centers for analysis of parental needs.
2. Estabrooks W. 50 frequently asked questions about auditory-verbal therapy. Toronto: Learning to Listen Foundation; 2001.
3. Yucel E, Derim D, Celik D. The needs of hearing impaired children’s parents who attend to auditory verbal therapy-counseling program. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2008;72(7):1097-111.
4. Luterman D, kurtzer-White L, Seewald RE. The young deaf child. Baltimore: York Press; 1999.
5. Wu CJD, Brown PM. Parent’s and teacher’s expectations of auditory-verbal therapy. Volta Review. 2002;104(10):5-20.
6. Keller SD, Ware JE, Gandek B, Aaronson NK, Alonso J, Apolone G, et al. Testing the equivalence of translations of widely used response choice labels: results from the IQOLA project. International Quality of Life Assessment. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998;51(11):933-44.
7. Yaghmaie F. Content validity and it's estimation. Journal of Medical Education. 2003;3(1):25-7.
8. Mc Gartland R. Content validity. In: Kempf-Leonard K, editor. Encyclopedia of social measurement. Pittsburgh: Elsevier Inc.; 2005. p. 495-8.
9. Polit DF, Beck CT, Owen SV. Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? appraisal and recommendations. Res Nurs Health. 2007;30(4):459-67.
10. Carmines EG, Zeller RA. Reliability and validity assessment. London: SAGE Publications; 1979.
11. Stone DH. Design a questionnaire. BMJ. 1993;307(6914):1264-6.
12. Kim Y, Park J, Lee H, Bang H, Park HJ. Content validity of an acupuncture sensation questionnaire. J Altern Complement Med. 2008;14(8):957-63.
13. Mathur S, Eng JJ, Maclntyre DL. Reliability of surface EMG during sustained contractions of the quadriceps. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2005;15(1):102-10.
14. Leiss JL. Design and analysis of clinical experiments. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1986.
15. Estabrooks W. Auditory-verbal therapy and practice. In: Estabrooks W, editor. Auditory-verbal therapy and practice. Washington DC: Alexander Graham Bell association for the deaf and hard of hearing, Inc; 2006. p. 1-10.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.