DISCRIMINATING AND RESPONSIVENESS ABILITIES OF 2 HEARING HANDICAP SCALES

被引:28
作者
MULROW, CD
TULEY, MR
AGUILAR, C
机构
[1] AUDIE L MURPHY MEM VET HOSP 11C,AUDIOL & SPEECH PATHOL SERV,SAN ANTONIO,TX 78284
[2] UNIV TEXAS,HLTH SCI CTR,SAN ANTONIO,TX 78284
关键词
D O I
10.1097/00003446-199006000-00002
中图分类号
R36 [病理学]; R76 [耳鼻咽喉科学];
学科分类号
100104 ; 100213 ;
摘要
Several scales exist for screening handicap and assessing rehabilitation in elderly individuals with hearing loss. There are few comparative studies, however, to suggest which scales perform best. Using receiver-operating curves and responsiveness indices, we examined the relative discriminating ability and sensitivity to detect change of four scales: a long and short version of the Hearing Handicap Inventory in the Elderly (HHIE-L, HHIE- S), and a long and short version of the Revised Quantified Denver Scale of Communication Function (RQDS-L, RQDS- S). All scales were administered to 137 elderly veterans with hearing loss and 101 elderly veterans without hearing loss. Follow-up testing to determine relative ability to detect change was assessed in hearing impaired individuals only after they had used a hearing aid for 4 months. Discriminative accuracy for correctly identifying individuals with hearing loss were: HHIE-L 78%, HHIE-S 79%, RQDS-L 73%, and RQDS-S 74%. Overall differences between the HHIE-S and the RQDS-S were not statistically significant (p = 0.06). True positive results were greater with the HHIE-S compared to the RQDS-S (p = 0.03). Responsiveness indices were: HHIE-L 1.78, HHIE-S 1.86, RQDS-L 1.04, and RQDS-S 1.07. Differences between the HHIE-S and the RQDS-S were statistically significant (p < 0.05). We conclude short versions of the HHIE and RQDS are as accurate and sensitive for detecting change as long versions, and the HHIE-S is a superior versatile instrument for screening and assessing rehabilitation in elderly individuals with hearing impairment. © 1990 by The Williams and Wilkins Co.
引用
收藏
页码:176 / 180
页数:5
相关论文
共 15 条
[1]  
Alpiner J, 1974, DENVER SCALE COMMUNI
[2]  
BLALOCK HM, 1968, METHODOLOGY SOC R
[3]  
CLARK JG, 1981, ASHA, V23, P330
[4]   MAXIMUM-LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATION OF PARAMETERS OF SIGNAL-DETECTION THEORY AND DETERMINATION OF CONFIDENCE INTERVALS - RATING-METHOD DATA [J].
DORFMAN, DD ;
ALF, E .
JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICAL PSYCHOLOGY, 1969, 6 (03) :487-&
[5]   ACCURACY OF A 40 DB HL AUDIOSCOPE AND AUDIOMETER SCREENING FOR ADULTS [J].
FRANK, T ;
PETERSEN, DR .
EAR AND HEARING, 1987, 8 (03) :180-183
[6]   MEASURING CHANGE OVER TIME - ASSESSING THE USEFULNESS OF EVALUATIVE INSTRUMENTS [J].
GUYATT, G ;
WALTER, S ;
NORMAN, G .
JOURNAL OF CHRONIC DISEASES, 1987, 40 (02) :171-178
[7]   DIAGNOSTIC PERFORMANCE OF THE HEARING HANDICAP INVENTORY FOR THE ELDERLY (SCREENING VERSION) AGAINST DIFFERING DEFINITIONS OF HEARING-LOSS [J].
LICHTENSTEIN, MJ ;
BESS, FH ;
LOGAN, SA .
EAR AND HEARING, 1988, 9 (04) :208-211
[8]  
Metz CE, 1984, INFORMATION PROCESSI
[9]  
MULROW CD, IN PRESS J AM GERIAT
[10]   TEST-RETEST RELIABILITY OF THE HEARING HANDICAP INVENTORY FOR THE ELDERLY USING 2 ADMINISTRATION APPROACHES [J].
NEWMAN, CW ;
WEINSTEIN, BE .
EAR AND HEARING, 1989, 10 (03) :190-191