Quality of questionnaires for the assessment of otitis media with effusion in children
Authors:
Gan, R. W. C., Daniel, M., Ridley, M., and Barry, J. G.
Abstract:
OBJECTIVES: Audiometric tests provide information about hearing in otitis media with effusion (OME). Questionnaires can supplement this information by supporting clinical history-taking as well as potentially providing a standardized and comprehensive assessment of the impact of the disease on a child. There are many possible candidate questionnaires. This study aimed to assess the quality and usability of parent / child questionnaires in OME assessment.
DESIGN AND MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Fifteen, published questionnaires, commonly used in audiological departments (Auditory Behaviour in Everyday Life (ABEL), Children's Auditory Performance Scale (CHAPS), Children's Home Inventory for Listening Difficulties (CHILD), Children's Outcome Worksheets (COW), Evaluation of Children's Listening and Processing Skills (ECLiPS), Early Listening Function (ELF), Fisher's Auditory Problem Checklist (FAPC), Hearing Loss 7 (HL-7), Listening Inventory for Education- Revised (LIFE-R Student), Listening Inventory for Education UK Individual Hearing Profile (LIFE-UK IHP), LittlEARS Auditory Questionnaire (LittlEARS), Listening Situations Questionnaire (LSQ), Otitis Media 6 (OM-6), Quality of Life in Children's Ear Problems (OMQ-14), Parents' Evaluation of Aural/Oral Performance of Children (PEACH) were assessed according to the following 8 criteria: conceptual clarity, respondent burden, reliability, validity, normative data, item bias, ceiling/ floor effects, and administrative burden.
RESULTS: ECLiPS, LittlEARS and PEACH scored highest overall based on the assessment criteria established for this study. None of the questionnaires fully satisfied all 8 criteria. Although all questionnaires assessed issues considered to be of at least adequate relevance to OME, the majority had weaknesses with respect to the assessment of psychometric properties, such as item bias, floor/ceiling effects or measurement reliability and validity. Publications reporting on the evaluation of reliability, validity, normative data, item bias and ceiling/floor effects were not available for most of the questionnaires.
CONCLUSIONS: This formal evaluation of questionnaires, currently available to clinicians, highlights three questionnaires as potentially offering a useful adjunct in the assessment of OME in clinical or research settings. These were the ECLiPS, which is suitable for children aged 6 years and older, and either the LittlEARS or the PEACH for younger children. The latter two are narrowly focused on hearing, whereas ECLiPS has a broader focus on listening, language and social difficulties.
