Validation of the German language version of the Chronic Ear Survey and its psychometric comparison with an established German measurement instrument.
Validierung der deutschsprachigen Version des Chronic Ear Survey und dessen psychometrischer Vergleich mit einem etablierten deutschsprachigen Messinstrument.
Epidemiologic measurements
Middle ear
Otitis media
Quality of life
Questionnaire
Journal
HNO
ISSN: 1433-0458
Titre abrégé: HNO
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 2985099R
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
04 Oct 2023
04 Oct 2023
Historique:
accepted:
26
06
2023
medline:
4
10
2023
pubmed:
4
10
2023
entrez:
4
10
2023
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
With the Chronic Ear Survey (CES), a validated measurement instrument for the assessment of disease-specific health-related quality of life (HRQoL) has been available internationally since 2000. The aim of this study was to provide a validated German version of this international instrument and to compare it with the German Chronic Otitis Media Outcome Test 15 (COMOT-15). The CES was translated into German via a forward-backward translation process. For validation, 79 patients with COM undergoing middle ear surgery were prospectively included. HRQoL was determined preoperatively and 6 months postoperatively using the CES and the COMOT-15. Pure tone audiometry was also performed at both measurement time points. In the control examination, an additional retrospective assessment of the preoperative situation was additionally performed using the CES and the COMOT-15 to assess the response shift. The determined psychometric characteristics were internal consistency, test-retest reliability, discrimination validity, agreement validity, responsiveness, and response shift for both measurement instruments. Convergent validity of both measurement instruments was assessed using linear regression. On the basis of the CES, patients with COM could be reliably distinguished from patients with healthy ears. The CES showed satisfactory reliability with high internal consistency (Cronbach α 0.65-0.85) and high retest reliability (r > 0.8). The global assessment of HRQoL impairment correlated very well with the scores of the CES (r = 0.51). In addition, it showed a high sensitivity to change (standardized response mean -0.86). Compared to the COMOT-15, it showed a lower response shift (effect size -0.17 vs. 0.44). Both measurement instruments correlated only slightly with air conduction hearing threshold (r = 0.29 and r = 0.24, respectively). The concordant validity of both measurement instruments was high (r = 0.68). The German version of the CES shows satisfactory psychometric characteristics, so that its use can be recommended. The CES focuses on the influence of ear symptoms on HRQoL, whereas the COMOT-15 also includes functional and psychological aspects. Due to only minor response shift effects, the CES is particularly suitable for studies with multiple repeat measurements.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
With the Chronic Ear Survey (CES), a validated measurement instrument for the assessment of disease-specific health-related quality of life (HRQoL) has been available internationally since 2000. The aim of this study was to provide a validated German version of this international instrument and to compare it with the German Chronic Otitis Media Outcome Test 15 (COMOT-15).
METHODOLOGY
METHODS
The CES was translated into German via a forward-backward translation process. For validation, 79 patients with COM undergoing middle ear surgery were prospectively included. HRQoL was determined preoperatively and 6 months postoperatively using the CES and the COMOT-15. Pure tone audiometry was also performed at both measurement time points. In the control examination, an additional retrospective assessment of the preoperative situation was additionally performed using the CES and the COMOT-15 to assess the response shift. The determined psychometric characteristics were internal consistency, test-retest reliability, discrimination validity, agreement validity, responsiveness, and response shift for both measurement instruments. Convergent validity of both measurement instruments was assessed using linear regression.
RESULTS
RESULTS
On the basis of the CES, patients with COM could be reliably distinguished from patients with healthy ears. The CES showed satisfactory reliability with high internal consistency (Cronbach α 0.65-0.85) and high retest reliability (r > 0.8). The global assessment of HRQoL impairment correlated very well with the scores of the CES (r = 0.51). In addition, it showed a high sensitivity to change (standardized response mean -0.86). Compared to the COMOT-15, it showed a lower response shift (effect size -0.17 vs. 0.44). Both measurement instruments correlated only slightly with air conduction hearing threshold (r = 0.29 and r = 0.24, respectively). The concordant validity of both measurement instruments was high (r = 0.68).
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
The German version of the CES shows satisfactory psychometric characteristics, so that its use can be recommended. The CES focuses on the influence of ear symptoms on HRQoL, whereas the COMOT-15 also includes functional and psychological aspects. Due to only minor response shift effects, the CES is particularly suitable for studies with multiple repeat measurements.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37792097
doi: 10.1007/s00106-023-01335-5
pii: 10.1007/s00106-023-01335-5
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Bächinger D, Röösli C, Ditzen B, Huber AM (2016) Development and validation of the Zurich chronic middle ear inventory (ZCMEI-21): an electronic questionnaire for assessing quality of life in patients with chronic otitis media. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 273:3073–3081. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-016-3915-7
doi: 10.1007/s00405-016-3915-7
pubmed: 26869474
Baumann I, Kurpiers B, Plinkert PK, Praetorius M (2009) Development and validation of the Chronic Otitis Media Outcome Test 15 (COMOT-15). Measurement of health-related quality of life in patients with chronic otitis media. HNO 57:889–895. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00106-008-1870-3
doi: 10.1007/s00106-008-1870-3
pubmed: 19629418
Choi SY, Cho Y‑S, Lee NJ et al (2012) Factors associated with quality of life after ear surgery in patients with chronic otitis media. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 138:840–845. https://doi.org/10.1001/archoto.2012.1800
doi: 10.1001/archoto.2012.1800
pubmed: 22986718
Cohen J (1992) A power primer. Psychol Bull 112:155–159. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.112.1.155
doi: 10.1037//0033-2909.112.1.155
pubmed: 19565683
Crosby RD, Kolotkin RL, Williams GR (2003) Defining clinically meaningful change in health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0895-4356(03)00044-1
doi: 10.1016/S0895-4356(03)00044-1
pubmed: 12812812
Fisseni H‑J (2004) Lehrbuch der psychologischen Diagnostik mit Hinweisen zur Intervention, 3 edn. Hogrefe, Göttingen
Geerse S, de Haan RJ, de Wolf MJF et al (2019) Clinimetric evaluation and clinical outcomes of the Dutch version of the chronic ear survey. Health Qual Life Outcomes 17:105. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-019-1173-2
doi: 10.1186/s12955-019-1173-2
pubmed: 31215443
pmcid: 6582510
Homøe P, Heidemann CH, Damoiseaux RA et al (2020) Panel 5: Impact of otitis media on quality of life and development. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 130(Suppl 1):109837. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijporl.2019.109837
doi: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2019.109837
pubmed: 31883704
Igl W, Zwingmann C, Faller H (2005) Änderungssensitivität. Rehabilitation. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2004-834719
doi: 10.1055/s-2004-834719
pubmed: 15789293
Koller M, Lorenz W (2003) Survival of the quality of life concept. Br J Surg 90:1175–1177. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.4351
doi: 10.1002/bjs.4351
pubmed: 14515283
Korsten-Meijer AGW, Wit HP, Albers FWJ (2006) Evaluation of the relation between audiometric and psychometric measures of hearing after tympanoplasty. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 263:256–262. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-005-0983-5
doi: 10.1007/s00405-005-0983-5
pubmed: 16267683
Lailach S, Baumann I, Zahnert T, Neudert M (2018) State of the art of quality-of-life measurement in patients with chronic otitis media and conductive hearing loss. HNO 66:578–589. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00106-018-0524-3
doi: 10.1007/s00106-018-0524-3
pubmed: 29915938
Lailach S, Langanke T, Zahnert T et al (2021) Impact of depressive disorders on quality of life after middle ear surgery in patients with chronic otitis media. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 278:3217–3225. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-020-06397-7
doi: 10.1007/s00405-020-06397-7
pubmed: 33011956
Mlynski R, Bächinger D, Langanke T et al (2022) Comparison of two disease-specific instruments assessing health-related quality of life in patients with chronic otitis media. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 279:703–711. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-021-06702-y
doi: 10.1007/s00405-021-06702-y
pubmed: 33788035
Möltner A, Schellberg D, Jünger J (2006) Grundlegende quantitative Analysen medizinischer Prüfungen. GMS Z Med Ausbild 23:Doc53
Nadol JB, Staecker H, Gliklich RE (2000) Outcomes assessment for chronic otitis media: the Chronic Ear Survey. Laryngoscope 110:32–35. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005537-200003002-00009
doi: 10.1097/00005537-200003002-00009
pubmed: 10718413
Neudert M (2020) Quality in middle ear surgery—A critical position determination. Laryngorhinootologie 99:S222–S271. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-1021-6427
doi: 10.1055/a-1021-6427
pubmed: 32384566
Newman CW, Weinstein BE, Jacobson GP, Hug GA (1990) The hearing handicap inventory for adults: Psychometric adequacy and audiometric correlates. Ear Hear 11:430–433. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003446-199012000-00004
doi: 10.1097/00003446-199012000-00004
pubmed: 2073976
Norman G (2003) Hi! How are you? Response shift, implicit theories and differing epistemologies. Qual Life Res. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023211129926
doi: 10.1023/A:1023211129926
pubmed: 12769136
Nunnally JC, Nunnaly JC (1978) Psychometric theory. McGraw-Hill
Ralli G, Milella C, Ralli M et al (2017) Quality of life measurements for patients with chronic suppurative otitis media: Italian adaptation of “Chronic Ear Survey”. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital 37:51–57. https://doi.org/10.14639/0392-100X-1041
doi: 10.14639/0392-100X-1041
pubmed: 28374871
pmcid: 5384310
Sprangers MA, Schwartz CE (1999) Integrating response shift into health-related quality of life research: a theoretical model. Soc Sci Med 48:1507–1515. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0277-9536(99)00045-3
doi: 10.1016/s0277-9536(99)00045-3
pubmed: 10400253
Sprangers MAG (2002) Quality-of-life assessment in oncology. Achievements and challenges. Acta Oncol 41:229–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/02841860260088764
doi: 10.1080/02841860260088764
pubmed: 12195741
Streiner DL (2003) Starting at the beginning: an introduction to coefficient alpha and internal consistency. J Pers Assess 80:99–103. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327752JPA8001_18
doi: 10.1207/S15327752JPA8001_18
pubmed: 12584072
Wang PC, Nadol JB, Merchant S et al (2000) Validation of outcomes survey for adults with chronic suppurative otitis media. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 109:249–254. https://doi.org/10.1177/000348940010900302
doi: 10.1177/000348940010900302
pubmed: 10737305