对作为耳鸣严重程度和耳鸣压力测量指标的耳鸣患者报告结果的批判性回顾,以及对作为形成性或反思性测量指标的耳鸣障碍量表的示例分析

N. Clarke, Derek J. Hoare, Andrew Trigg
{"title":"对作为耳鸣严重程度和耳鸣压力测量指标的耳鸣患者报告结果的批判性回顾,以及对作为形成性或反思性测量指标的耳鸣障碍量表的示例分析","authors":"N. Clarke, Derek J. Hoare, Andrew Trigg","doi":"10.3389/fauot.2023.1325137","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Tinnitus Severity and Tinnitus Distress are frequently referenced and conflated constructs in research, measured using established tinnitus patient-reported outcome measures (PROs). Confusion regarding these constructs and their relation to fundamental scientific conceptions of tinnitus represents a threat to the validity of PROs as applied in tinnitus research, the conclusions that are reached when applying them, and subsequent progress of theory and clinical interventions for those experiencing tinnitus. Therefore, we critically review relevant literature, providing the Severity of Symptoms (SoS) and Correlates of Complaint (CoC) framework to link tinnitus theory to these constructs. We provide researchers with an overview of latent variable fundamentals (including distinctions between formative and reflective measures, and psychometric and clinimetric measurement traditions). We then provide a synthesis of the relationship between Tinnitus Severity and Tinnitus Distress, the SoS/CoC framework, and latent variable measurement to elucidate their distinctions. Finally, we take the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory (THI) as an exemplar of established tinnitus PROs and use study data (N = 200) to empirically evaluate the appropriateness of the THI as a reflective measure of Tinnitus Distress. Subsequently, conceptual and criterion mediation tests provide evidence that the THI is not a reflective measure of Tinnitus Distress according to the CoC conception and should be considered as a formative measure. Researchers should therefore consider whether established tinnitus PROs, such as the THI, are congruent with the scientific conceptions and subsequent theories that they aim to evaluate.","PeriodicalId":483207,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Audiology and Otology","volume":"94 17","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A critical review of established tinnitus patient-reported outcomes as measures of Tinnitus Severity and Tinnitus Distress and exemplar analysis of the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory as a formative or reflective measure\",\"authors\":\"N. Clarke, Derek J. Hoare, Andrew Trigg\",\"doi\":\"10.3389/fauot.2023.1325137\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Tinnitus Severity and Tinnitus Distress are frequently referenced and conflated constructs in research, measured using established tinnitus patient-reported outcome measures (PROs). Confusion regarding these constructs and their relation to fundamental scientific conceptions of tinnitus represents a threat to the validity of PROs as applied in tinnitus research, the conclusions that are reached when applying them, and subsequent progress of theory and clinical interventions for those experiencing tinnitus. Therefore, we critically review relevant literature, providing the Severity of Symptoms (SoS) and Correlates of Complaint (CoC) framework to link tinnitus theory to these constructs. We provide researchers with an overview of latent variable fundamentals (including distinctions between formative and reflective measures, and psychometric and clinimetric measurement traditions). We then provide a synthesis of the relationship between Tinnitus Severity and Tinnitus Distress, the SoS/CoC framework, and latent variable measurement to elucidate their distinctions. Finally, we take the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory (THI) as an exemplar of established tinnitus PROs and use study data (N = 200) to empirically evaluate the appropriateness of the THI as a reflective measure of Tinnitus Distress. Subsequently, conceptual and criterion mediation tests provide evidence that the THI is not a reflective measure of Tinnitus Distress according to the CoC conception and should be considered as a formative measure. Researchers should therefore consider whether established tinnitus PROs, such as the THI, are congruent with the scientific conceptions and subsequent theories that they aim to evaluate.\",\"PeriodicalId\":483207,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Frontiers in Audiology and Otology\",\"volume\":\"94 17\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Frontiers in Audiology and Otology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"0\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3389/fauot.2023.1325137\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Audiology and Otology","FirstCategoryId":"0","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fauot.2023.1325137","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

耳鸣严重程度和耳鸣困扰是研究中经常被提及和混淆的概念,这两个概念都是通过既定的耳鸣患者报告结果测量方法(PROs)来测量的。关于这些概念及其与耳鸣基本科学概念之间关系的混淆,对耳鸣研究中应用的PROs的有效性、应用PROs得出的结论以及耳鸣患者理论和临床干预的后续进展构成了威胁。因此,我们批判性地回顾了相关文献,提供了症状严重性(SoS)和主诉相关性(CoC)框架,将耳鸣理论与这些结构联系起来。我们向研究人员概述了潜在变量的基本原理(包括形成性测量和反思性测量之间的区别,以及心理测量和临床测量传统)。然后,我们对耳鸣严重程度和耳鸣困扰、SoS/CoC 框架以及潜变量测量之间的关系进行了综合分析,以阐明它们之间的区别。最后,我们以耳鸣障碍量表(THI)为例,使用研究数据(N = 200)来实证评估耳鸣障碍量表(THI)作为耳鸣压力反映测量的适当性。随后,概念和标准中介检验提供了证据,证明根据 CoC 概念,THI 并非耳鸣压力的反映性测量指标,而应被视为一种形成性测量指标。因此,研究人员应考虑已建立的耳鸣 PRO(如 THI)是否与其旨在评估的科学概念和后续理论相一致。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A critical review of established tinnitus patient-reported outcomes as measures of Tinnitus Severity and Tinnitus Distress and exemplar analysis of the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory as a formative or reflective measure
Tinnitus Severity and Tinnitus Distress are frequently referenced and conflated constructs in research, measured using established tinnitus patient-reported outcome measures (PROs). Confusion regarding these constructs and their relation to fundamental scientific conceptions of tinnitus represents a threat to the validity of PROs as applied in tinnitus research, the conclusions that are reached when applying them, and subsequent progress of theory and clinical interventions for those experiencing tinnitus. Therefore, we critically review relevant literature, providing the Severity of Symptoms (SoS) and Correlates of Complaint (CoC) framework to link tinnitus theory to these constructs. We provide researchers with an overview of latent variable fundamentals (including distinctions between formative and reflective measures, and psychometric and clinimetric measurement traditions). We then provide a synthesis of the relationship between Tinnitus Severity and Tinnitus Distress, the SoS/CoC framework, and latent variable measurement to elucidate their distinctions. Finally, we take the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory (THI) as an exemplar of established tinnitus PROs and use study data (N = 200) to empirically evaluate the appropriateness of the THI as a reflective measure of Tinnitus Distress. Subsequently, conceptual and criterion mediation tests provide evidence that the THI is not a reflective measure of Tinnitus Distress according to the CoC conception and should be considered as a formative measure. Researchers should therefore consider whether established tinnitus PROs, such as the THI, are congruent with the scientific conceptions and subsequent theories that they aim to evaluate.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信