4.2 Article

Validity of self-reported hearing loss in adults: performance of three single questions

Journal

REVISTA DE SAUDE PUBLICA
Volume 45, Issue 5, Pages 824-830

Publisher

REVISTA DE SAUDE PUBLICA
DOI: 10.1590/S0034-89102011005000050

Keywords

Hearing Loss, diagnosis; Questionnaires, utilization; Sensitivity and Specificity; Validation Studies

Funding

  1. Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior (CAPES ) [3875/07-5]
  2. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico (CNPq) [521226/98-8, 522621.96-1]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the validity of three single questions used to assess self-reported hearing loss as compared to pure-tone audiometry in an adult population. METHODS: A validity study was performed with a random sub-sample of I 88 subjects aged 30 to 65 years, drawn from the fourth wave of a population-based cohort study carried out in Salvador, Northeastern Brazil. Data were collected in household visits using questionnaires. Three questions were used to separately assess self-reported hearing loss: Q1, Do you feel you have a hearing loss?; Q2, In general, would you say your hearing is 'excellent,' 'very good,' 'good,' 'fair,' 'poor'?; Q3, Currently, do you think you can hear 'the same as before', 'less than before only in the right ear', 'less than before only in the left ear', 'less than before in both ears'?. Measures of accuracy were estimated through seven measures including Youden index. Responses to each question were compared to the results of pure-tone audiometry to estimate accuracy measures. RESULTS: The estimated sensitivity and specificity were 79.6%, 77.4% for Q1; 66.9%, 85.1% for Q2; and 81.5%, 76.4% for Q3, respectively. The Youden index ranged from 51.9% (Q2) to 57.0% (Q1) and 57.9% (Q3). CONCLUSIONS: Each of all three questions provides responses accurate enough to support their use to assess self-reported hearing loss in epidemiological studies with adult populations when pure-tone audiometry is not feasible.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available