我为我还是我为人人?耳鸣功能指数与客户导向耳鸣改善量表作为预后指标的比较。

IF 1.2 4区 医学 Q3 AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY
Grant D Searchfield, Vivian Kwok
{"title":"我为我还是我为人人?耳鸣功能指数与客户导向耳鸣改善量表作为预后指标的比较。","authors":"Grant D Searchfield, Vivian Kwok","doi":"10.3766/jaaa.240110","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> The purpose of the Client Oriented Scale of Improvement in Tinnitus (COSIT) is to set treatment goals and assess individual outcomes. The Tinnitus Functional Index (TFI) was developed as a comprehensive questionnaire to measure individual and population responses to tinnitus therapies.<b>Purpose:</b> To investigate the convergent validity and responsiveness of the COSIT and TFI.<b>Study Sample:</b> A secondary data analysis of COSIT and TFI measures from 99 participants who used sound-based therapy with hearing aids or earphones was undertaken.<b>Data Collection and Analysis:</b> Athematic analysis of COSIT goals was applied. Nonparametric statistical methods were used to measure convergence of COSIT \"change with treatment scores\" and \"final scores\" to change in TFI scores pretreatment and posttreatment and the final TFI scores with treatment. The level of agreement between the measures was determined using receiver operating characteristic curves. Treatment responsiveness was determined by comparing treatment-related change in total scores and subscales for responders versus nonresponders. Responders were classified as having >13-point change in the total TFI score and COSIT \"change\" score of >2 (3 = slightly better to 5 = much better).<b>Results:</b> The five most common COSIT goals were reducing tinnitus impact by addressing (1) well-being, (2) hearing, (3) sleep, (4) focus, and (5) context. The TFI and COSIT change scores and TFI and COSIT final scores showed moderate to strong agreement. The COSIT classified a higher percentage (78 percent) of participants as responders than the TFI did (43 percent). There was a fair agreement between the clinically meaningful change scores for TFI and COSIT (&#954; = 0.29).<b>Conclusions:</b> The TFI and COSIT measured similar constructs, and both differentiated responders from nonresponders. Our results are consistent with the COSIT being an ideal \"one for one\" tool because of its high responsiveness to individual goals. The TFI is better suited as a \"one for all\" questionnaire because of its universal content. Clinical trials should consider use of both the COSIT and TFI because of their different, but complementary, strengths.</p>","PeriodicalId":50021,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American Academy of Audiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"One for One or One for All? A Comparison of the Tinnitus Functional Index and the Client Oriented Scale of Improvement in Tinnitus as Outcome Measures.\",\"authors\":\"Grant D Searchfield, Vivian Kwok\",\"doi\":\"10.3766/jaaa.240110\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Background:</b> The purpose of the Client Oriented Scale of Improvement in Tinnitus (COSIT) is to set treatment goals and assess individual outcomes. The Tinnitus Functional Index (TFI) was developed as a comprehensive questionnaire to measure individual and population responses to tinnitus therapies.<b>Purpose:</b> To investigate the convergent validity and responsiveness of the COSIT and TFI.<b>Study Sample:</b> A secondary data analysis of COSIT and TFI measures from 99 participants who used sound-based therapy with hearing aids or earphones was undertaken.<b>Data Collection and Analysis:</b> Athematic analysis of COSIT goals was applied. Nonparametric statistical methods were used to measure convergence of COSIT \\\"change with treatment scores\\\" and \\\"final scores\\\" to change in TFI scores pretreatment and posttreatment and the final TFI scores with treatment. The level of agreement between the measures was determined using receiver operating characteristic curves. Treatment responsiveness was determined by comparing treatment-related change in total scores and subscales for responders versus nonresponders. Responders were classified as having >13-point change in the total TFI score and COSIT \\\"change\\\" score of >2 (3 = slightly better to 5 = much better).<b>Results:</b> The five most common COSIT goals were reducing tinnitus impact by addressing (1) well-being, (2) hearing, (3) sleep, (4) focus, and (5) context. The TFI and COSIT change scores and TFI and COSIT final scores showed moderate to strong agreement. The COSIT classified a higher percentage (78 percent) of participants as responders than the TFI did (43 percent). There was a fair agreement between the clinically meaningful change scores for TFI and COSIT (&#954; = 0.29).<b>Conclusions:</b> The TFI and COSIT measured similar constructs, and both differentiated responders from nonresponders. Our results are consistent with the COSIT being an ideal \\\"one for one\\\" tool because of its high responsiveness to individual goals. The TFI is better suited as a \\\"one for all\\\" questionnaire because of its universal content. Clinical trials should consider use of both the COSIT and TFI because of their different, but complementary, strengths.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50021,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the American Academy of Audiology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the American Academy of Audiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3766/jaaa.240110\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American Academy of Audiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3766/jaaa.240110","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:以客户为导向的耳鸣改善量表(COSIT)的目的是设定治疗目标和评估个体结果。耳鸣功能指数(TFI)是一个全面的问卷调查,以衡量个人和人群对耳鸣治疗的反应。目的:探讨COSIT和TFI的收敛效度和响应性。研究样本:对99名使用助听器或耳机进行声音治疗的参与者的COSIT和TFI测量进行二次数据分析。数据收集和分析:对COSIT目标进行了专题分析。采用非参数统计方法测量COSIT“随治疗评分变化”和“最终评分”对治疗前后TFI评分变化和最终TFI评分随治疗变化的收敛性。使用受试者工作特征曲线确定测量之间的一致程度。治疗反应性是通过比较反应者和无反应者的总分和亚量表的治疗相关变化来确定的。应答者被分类为TFI总分变化>3分,COSIT“变化”评分>2分(3 =略好到5 =好得多)。结果:五个最常见的COSIT目标是通过解决(1)健康,(2)听力,(3)睡眠,(4)注意力和(5)环境来减少耳鸣的影响。TFI和COSIT的变化分数和TFI和COSIT的最终分数显示出中等到强烈的一致性。COSIT将参与者分类为应答者的比例(78%)高于TFI(43%)。TFI和COSIT的临床意义变化评分之间存在相当一致的结果(κ= 0.29)。结论:TFI和COSIT测量了相似的结构,并且都区分了应答者和无应答者。我们的结果与COSIT是一个理想的“一对一”工具是一致的,因为它对个人目标的高响应性。TFI更适合作为“一个对所有人”的问卷,因为它的内容是普遍的。临床试验应考虑同时使用COSIT和TFI,因为它们具有不同但互补的优势。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
One for One or One for All? A Comparison of the Tinnitus Functional Index and the Client Oriented Scale of Improvement in Tinnitus as Outcome Measures.

Background: The purpose of the Client Oriented Scale of Improvement in Tinnitus (COSIT) is to set treatment goals and assess individual outcomes. The Tinnitus Functional Index (TFI) was developed as a comprehensive questionnaire to measure individual and population responses to tinnitus therapies.Purpose: To investigate the convergent validity and responsiveness of the COSIT and TFI.Study Sample: A secondary data analysis of COSIT and TFI measures from 99 participants who used sound-based therapy with hearing aids or earphones was undertaken.Data Collection and Analysis: Athematic analysis of COSIT goals was applied. Nonparametric statistical methods were used to measure convergence of COSIT "change with treatment scores" and "final scores" to change in TFI scores pretreatment and posttreatment and the final TFI scores with treatment. The level of agreement between the measures was determined using receiver operating characteristic curves. Treatment responsiveness was determined by comparing treatment-related change in total scores and subscales for responders versus nonresponders. Responders were classified as having >13-point change in the total TFI score and COSIT "change" score of >2 (3 = slightly better to 5 = much better).Results: The five most common COSIT goals were reducing tinnitus impact by addressing (1) well-being, (2) hearing, (3) sleep, (4) focus, and (5) context. The TFI and COSIT change scores and TFI and COSIT final scores showed moderate to strong agreement. The COSIT classified a higher percentage (78 percent) of participants as responders than the TFI did (43 percent). There was a fair agreement between the clinically meaningful change scores for TFI and COSIT (κ = 0.29).Conclusions: The TFI and COSIT measured similar constructs, and both differentiated responders from nonresponders. Our results are consistent with the COSIT being an ideal "one for one" tool because of its high responsiveness to individual goals. The TFI is better suited as a "one for all" questionnaire because of its universal content. Clinical trials should consider use of both the COSIT and TFI because of their different, but complementary, strengths.

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
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
46
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of the American Academy of Audiology (JAAA) is the Academy''s scholarly peer-reviewed publication, issued 10 times per year and available to Academy members as a benefit of membership. The JAAA publishes articles and clinical reports in all areas of audiology, including audiological assessment, amplification, aural habilitation and rehabilitation, auditory electrophysiology, vestibular assessment, and hearing science.
×
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