4.5 Article

Reevaluation of the Amsterdam Inventory for Auditory Disability and Handicap Using Item Response Theory

Journal

JOURNAL OF SPEECH LANGUAGE AND HEARING RESEARCH
Volume 59, Issue 2, Pages 373-383

Publisher

AMER SPEECH-LANGUAGE-HEARING ASSOC
DOI: 10.1044/2015_JSLHR-H-15-0156

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Heinsius Houbolt Foundation
  2. Phonak AG, Switzerland
  3. Health Insurance Netherlands

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: We reevaluated the psychometric properties of the Amsterdam Inventory for Auditory Disability and Handicap 9AIADH; Kramer, Kapteyn, Festen, & Tobi, 1995) using item response theory. Item response theory describes item functioning along an ability continuum. Method: Cross-sectional data from 2,352 adults with and without hearing impairment, ages 18-70 years, were analyzed. They completed the AIADH in the web-based prospective cohort study Netherlands Longitudinal Study on Hearing. A graded response model was fitted to the AIADH data. Category response curves, item information curves, and the standard error as a function of self-reported hearing ability were plotted. Results: The graded response model showed a good fit. Item information curves were most reliable for adults who reported having hearing disability and less reliable for adults with normal hearing. The standard error plot showed that self-reported hearing ability is most reliably measured for adults reporting mild up to moderate hearing disability. Conclusions: This is one of the few item response theory studies on audiological self-reports. All AIADH items could be hierarchically placed on the self-reported hearing ability continuum, meaning they measure the same construct. This provides a promising basis for developing a clinically useful computerized adaptive test, where item selection adapts to the hearing ability of individuals, resulting in efficient assessment of hearing disability.

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