4.5 Article

Reliability and validity of a brief version of the Questionnaire of Olfactory Disorders (brief QOD) in patients with olfactory dysfunction

Journal

RHINOLOGY
Volume 60, Issue 1, Pages 56-62

Publisher

INT RHINOLOGIC SOC
DOI: 10.4193/Rhin21.059

Keywords

questionnaire; olfactory disorders; quality of life; parosmia; reliability; validity

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study validated the reliability and validity of the brief version of Questionnaire of Olfactory Disorders (brief QOD) and demonstrated its suitability for assessing the subjective severity of olfactory dysfunction. It is important for purposes such as treatment counseling, disability assessment, treatment control, and research in patients with olfactory disorder.
Background: The aim of this study was to determine the reliability and validity of the brief version of Questionnaire of Olfactory Disorders (brief QOD). Methods: A total of 372 patients participated in this study. Olfactory function was examined using the Sniffin' Sticks test. The brief version of QOD, including 4 items concerning parosmia (QOD-P), 7 items concerning quality of life (QOD-QOL), and 3 visual analog scales to rate disease burden, awareness of the disorder and issues related to professional life (QOD-VAS), was used to assess subjective information on olfactory dysfunction. We evaluated the split-half reliability, internal consistency and validity of the brief QOD. Results: The split-half reliability was 0.60 (QOD-P), 0.87 (QOD-QOL), and 0.66 (QOD-VAS), respectively. The Cronbach's a coefficient was 0.63 (QOD-P), 0.87 (QOD-QOL), and 0.71 (QOD-VAS), respectively. Olfactory function was found to be associated with QOD-P, QOD-QOL and QOD-VAS. Conclusions: The brief QOD is a suitable scale for the assessment of subjective severity of olfactory dysfunction for purposes such as treatment counseling, disability assessment, treatment control, and research in patients with olfactory disorder.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available