The use of research questionnaires with hearing impaired adults: online vs. paper-and-pencil administration.

Q2 Medicine
Elisabet Sundewall Thorén, Gerhard Andersson, Thomas Lunner
{"title":"The use of research questionnaires with hearing impaired adults: online vs. paper-and-pencil administration.","authors":"Elisabet Sundewall Thorén,&nbsp;Gerhard Andersson,&nbsp;Thomas Lunner","doi":"10.1186/1472-6815-12-12","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Unlabelled: </strong></p><p><strong>Background: </strong>When evaluating hearing rehabilitation, it is reasonable to use self-report questionnaires as outcome measure. Questionnaires used in audiological research are developed and validated for the paper-and-pencil format. As computer and Internet use is increasing, standardized questionnaires used in the audiological context should be evaluated to determine the viability of the online administration format.The aim of this study was to compare administration of questionnaires online versus paper- and pencil of four standardised questionnaires used in hearing research and clinic. We included the Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly (HHIE), the International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids (IOI-HA), Satisfaction with Amplification in Daily Life (SADL), and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A cross-over design was used by randomly letting the participants complete the questionnaires either online or on paper. After 3 weeks the participants filled out the same questionnaires again but in the other format. A total of 65 hearing-aid users were recruited from a hearing clinic to participate on a voluntary basis and of these 53 completed both versions of the questionnaires.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A significant main effect of format was found on the HHIE (p < 0.001), with participants reporting higher scores on the online format than in the paper format. There was no interaction effect. For the other questionnaires were no significant main or interaction effects of format. Significant correlations between the two ways of presenting the measures was found for all questionnaires (p<0.05). The results from reliability tests showed Cronbachs α's above .70 for all four questionnaires and differences in Cronbachs α between administration formats were negligible.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>For three of the four included questionnaires the participants' scores remained consistent across administrations and formats. For the fourth included questionnaire (HHIE) a significant difference of format with a small effect size was found. The relevance of the difference in scores between the formats depends on which context the questionnaire is used in. On balance, it is recommended that the administration format remain stable across assessment points.</p>","PeriodicalId":39843,"journal":{"name":"BMC Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-10-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/1472-6815-12-12","citationCount":"48","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6815-12-12","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 48

Abstract

Unlabelled:

Background: When evaluating hearing rehabilitation, it is reasonable to use self-report questionnaires as outcome measure. Questionnaires used in audiological research are developed and validated for the paper-and-pencil format. As computer and Internet use is increasing, standardized questionnaires used in the audiological context should be evaluated to determine the viability of the online administration format.The aim of this study was to compare administration of questionnaires online versus paper- and pencil of four standardised questionnaires used in hearing research and clinic. We included the Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly (HHIE), the International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids (IOI-HA), Satisfaction with Amplification in Daily Life (SADL), and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS).

Methods: A cross-over design was used by randomly letting the participants complete the questionnaires either online or on paper. After 3 weeks the participants filled out the same questionnaires again but in the other format. A total of 65 hearing-aid users were recruited from a hearing clinic to participate on a voluntary basis and of these 53 completed both versions of the questionnaires.

Results: A significant main effect of format was found on the HHIE (p < 0.001), with participants reporting higher scores on the online format than in the paper format. There was no interaction effect. For the other questionnaires were no significant main or interaction effects of format. Significant correlations between the two ways of presenting the measures was found for all questionnaires (p<0.05). The results from reliability tests showed Cronbachs α's above .70 for all four questionnaires and differences in Cronbachs α between administration formats were negligible.

Conclusions: For three of the four included questionnaires the participants' scores remained consistent across administrations and formats. For the fourth included questionnaire (HHIE) a significant difference of format with a small effect size was found. The relevance of the difference in scores between the formats depends on which context the questionnaire is used in. On balance, it is recommended that the administration format remain stable across assessment points.

使用听力受损成年人的调查问卷:在线与纸笔管理。
背景:在评估听力康复时,使用自我报告问卷作为结果测量是合理的。在听力学研究中使用的调查问卷是根据纸笔格式开发和验证的。随着计算机和互联网使用的增加,应评估在听力学背景下使用的标准化问卷,以确定在线管理格式的可行性。本研究的目的是比较听力研究和临床中使用的四种标准化问卷的在线问卷管理和纸笔问卷管理。我们纳入了老年人听力障碍量表(HHIE)、国际助听器结果量表(IOI-HA)、日常生活放大满意度(SADL)和医院焦虑抑郁量表(HADS)。方法:采用交叉问卷设计,随机让被试在线或纸上填写问卷。三周后,参与者再次填写相同的问卷,但格式不同。从一家听力诊所招募了65名助听器使用者自愿参与,其中53人完成了两个版本的问卷。结果:格式对HHIE有显著的主要影响(p < 0.001),参与者报告在线格式的得分高于纸质格式。没有交互作用。其余问卷均无显著的主效应或交互效应。所有问卷的两种呈现方式之间都存在显著的相关性(结论:对于四份问卷中的三份,参与者的分数在不同的行政部门和格式中保持一致。第四份纳入问卷(HHIE)的格式差异显著,效应量较小。两种格式之间得分差异的相关性取决于使用问卷的上下文。总的来说,建议管理格式在评估点之间保持稳定。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMC Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders
BMC Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders Medicine-Otorhinolaryngology
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: BMC Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders is an open access journal publishing original peer-reviewed research articles in all aspects of the prevention, diagnosis and management of ear, nose and throat disorders, as well as related molecular genetics, pathophysiology, and epidemiology. BMC Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders (ISSN 1472-6815) is indexed/tracked/covered by PubMed, CAS, EMBASE, Scopus and Google Scholar.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信