Cross-cultural adaptation and determining validity and reliability of the Persian revised Buffalo model questionnaire
Background and Aim: The majority of auditory processing guidelines use questionnaires or checklists as screening tools. The Buffalo Model Questionnaire (BMQ) is a well-known and sensitive questionnaire to be used along with the Buffalo Model diagnostic test battery. The revision for the Buffalo Model Questionnaire-Revised (BMQ-R) implemented to improve the readability of the BMQ, reducing the completion time and increasing the ease of scoring for the audiologist. The purpose of this study was to develop and investigate the psychometric properties of the Persian version of BMQ-R (P-BMQ-R).
Methods: After cross-cultural adaptation of the questionnaire, the validity and reliability were determined, also the norms for the children in age ranges between 7 and 12 were generated.
Results: Findings of this study revealed strong content and face validity of the questionnaire. Scores of the test and retest were correlated (r > 0.9) strongly and positively based on Spearman correlation coefficient.
Conclusion: The Persian version of BMQ-R (P-BMQ-R) is a valid and reliable tool and is suitable to use in everyday practice.
2. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (central) auditory processing disorders [Technical Report]. 2005. Available from www.asha.org/policy. doi: 10.1044/policy.TR2005-00043
3. Musiek FE, Gollegly KM, Lamb LE, Lamb P. Selected issues in screening for central auditory processing dysfunction. Semin Hear. 1990;11(4):372-83. doi: 10.1055/s-0028-1085516
4. Paczkowska A, Marcinkowski JT. [Essence of auditory processing disorder – an underestimated health problem]. Hygeia Public Health. 2013;48(4):396-9. Polish.
5. Senderski A, Iwanicka-Pronicka K, Majak J, Walkowiak M, Dajos K. [Normative values of screening tests of auditory processing abilities of diagnostic-therapeutic platform APD-Medical]. Otorynolaryngologia. 2016;15(2):99-106. Polish.
6. Hind SE, Haines-Bazrafshan R, Benton CL, Brassington W, Towle B, Moore DR. Prevalence of clinical referrals having hearing thresholds within normal limits. Int J Audiol. 2011;50(10):708-16. doi: 10.3109/14992027.2011.582049
7. Keith RW. Tests of central auditory processing. Auditory disorders in school children. In: Masters MG, Stecker NA, Katz J, editors. Central auditory processing disorders: mostly management. 1st ed. Boston: Pearson; 1998. p. 110-6.
8. Jerger J, Musiek F. Report of the consensus conference on the diagnosis of auditory processing disorders in school-aged children. J Am Acad Audiol. 2000;11(9):467-74.
9. American Academy of Audiology (AAA). American Academy of Audiology Clinical Practice Guidelines: Diagnosis, Treatment, and Management of Children and Adults with Central Auditory Processing Disorder. American Academy of Audiology; 2010. p 1-51.
10. Skarżyński H, Bieńkowska K, Gos E, Skarżyński PH, Grudzień D, et al. Cross-cultural adaptation of the scale of auditory behaviors questionnaire. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch. 2019;50(4):683-92. doi: 10.1044/2019_LSHSS-19-0014
11. Pavlick ML, Zalewski TR, González JE, Duncan MKW. A (C)APD screening instrument for the Buffalo Model diagnostic test battery. J Educ Audiol. 2010;16:4-13.
12. Bellis TJ, Ferre JM. Assessment and management of central auditory processing disorders in children. Educational Audiology Monograph. 1996;4:23-7.
13. Katz J. The buffalo model questionnaire. SSW Reports. 2004;26:5-6.
14. Smoski WJ, Brunt MA, Tannahill JC. Children’s Auditory Performance Scale (CHAPS). Tampa, FL: Educational Audiology Association; 1998.
15. Anderson K, Smaldino J. Children’s home inventory for listening difficulties. Oklahoma: Educational Audiology Review; 2000.
16. Anderson K, Smaldino J. Listening inventories for education: A classroom measurement tool. Hear J. 1999;52(10):74-6. doi: 10.1097/00025572-199910000-00009
17. Schow RL, Chermak G. Implications from factor analysis for central auditory processing disorders. Am J Audiol. 1999;8(2):137-42. doi: 10.1044/1059-0889(1999/012)
18. O'Hara B, Mealings K. Developing the auditory processing domains questionnaire (APDQ): a differential screening tool for auditory processing disorder. Int J Audiol. 2018;57(10):764-75. doi: 10.1080/14992027.2018.1487087
19. Anderson KL. Screening identification for targeting educational risk. Denver, Co: Educational Audiology Association; 1989.
20. Fisher L. Fisher’s Auditory Problems Checklist. Bemidji, MN: Life Products; 1976.
21. Katz J. Buffalo model questionnaire: Follow up. SSW Reports. 2006;28:1-3.
22. Katz J. What does the buffalo model questionnaire tell us. SSW Reports. 2008;30:1-4.
23. Katz J, Zalewski T. Buffalo model questionnaire with manual [auditory processing disorders checklist]. Pittsburgh: Educational Audiology Association; 2011.
24. Khamisabadi S, Jarollahi F, Ahadi M, Jalaie S, Ahmadi Z. Validity and reliability of the Persian version of Buffalo Model Questionnaire (P-BMQ) among 7 to 12 year-old normal children. Func Disabil J. 2019;2(1):71-7. doi: 10.34171/fdj.2.9
25. Negin E, Barootian SS. [Central auditory processing assessments; Buffalo model of auditory processing]. 1st ed. Tehran: Setayeshe Hasti Pub.; 2018. Persian.
26. Negin E, Mohammadkhani G, Jalaie S, Jarollahi F. Efficacy of phonemic training program in rehabilitation of Persian-speaking children with auditory processing disorder: a single subject study. Aud Vestib Res. 2018;27(3):116-25. doi: 10.18502/avr.v27i3.52
27. Barootiyan SS, Jalilvand Karimi L, Jalaie S, Negin E. Development and evaluation of the efficacy of Persian phonemic synthesis program in children with (central) auditory processing disorder: a single subject study. Aud Vest Res. 2018;27(2):101-10.
28. Negin E, Jarollahi F, Barootiyan SS, Seyyedi F, Jalaie S, Katz J. Development, validity, reliability and normative data of the Persian Phonemic Synthesis Test (P-PST). Int J Audiol. 2020;59(3):230-5. doi: 10.1080/14992027.2019.1688401
29. Margolis RH, Wilson RH, Popelka GR, Eikelboom RH, Swanepoel de W, Saly GL. Distribution characteristics of normal pure-tone thresholds. Int J Audiol. 2015;54(11):796-805. doi: 10.3109/14992027.2015.1033656
30. Creten WL, Van de Heyning PH, Van Camp KJ. Immittance audiometry. Normative data at 220 and 660 Hz. Scand Audiol. 1985;14(3):115-21. doi: 10.3109/01050398509045932
31. Oldfield RC. The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia. 1971;9(1):97-113. doi: 10.1016/0028-3932(71)90067-4
32. Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25(24):3186-91. doi: 10.1097/00007632-200012150-00014
33. Lawshe CH. A quantitative approach to content validity. Pers Psychol. 1975;28(4):563-75. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1975.tb01393.x
34. Preston CC, Colman AM. Optimal number of response categories in rating scales: reliability, validity, dis¬criminating power, and respondent preferences. Acta Psychol (Amst). 2000;104(1):1-15. doi: 10.1016/s0001-6918(99)00050-5
35. Jutras B, Loubert M, Dupuis JL, Marcoux C, Dumont V, Baril M. Applicability of central auditory processing disorder models. Am J Audiol. 2007;16(2):100-6. doi: 10.1044/1059-0889(2007/014)
36. Katz J. The use of staggered spondaic words for assessing the integrity of the central auditory nervous system. J Auditory Res. 1962;2:327-37.
37. Katz J, Harmon C. Phonemic synthesis: diagnostic and training program. In: Central auditory and language disorders in children. Keith RW, editor. San Diego: College Hill Park Press; 1981. p. 145-59.
38. Katz J. The word recognition score in noise: Hirsh W-22 lists 2D & 4D with ipsilateral speech-spectrum noise. Vancouver: Precision Acoustics; 1998.
Copyright (c) 2020 Auditory and Vestibular Research
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.