4.5 Article Proceedings Paper

Validation of the Penn Acoustic Neuroma Quality-of-Life Scale (PANQOL) for Spanish-Speaking Patients

Journal

OTOLARYNGOLOGY-HEAD AND NECK SURGERY
Volume 156, Issue 4, Pages 728-734

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/0194599816688640

Keywords

acoustic neuroma; vestibular schwannoma; quality of life

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective. To perform translation, cross-cultural adaptation, and validation of the Penn Acoustic Neuroma Quality-of-Life Scale (PANQOL) to the Spanish language. Study Design. Prospective study. Setting. Tertiary neurotologic referral center. Subjects and Methods. PANQOL was translated and translated back, and a pretest trial was performed. The study included 27 individuals diagnosed with vestibular schwannoma. Inclusion criteria were adults with untreated vestibular schwannoma, diagnosed in the past 12 months. Feasibility, internal consistency, test-retest reliability, construct validity, and ceiling and floor effects were assessed for the present study. Results. The mean overall score of the PANQOL was 69.21 (0-100 scale, lowest to highest quality of life). Cronbach's alpha was 0.87. Intraclass correlation coefficient was performed for each item, with an overall score of 0.92. The k coefficient scores were between moderate and almost perfect in more than 92% of patients. Anxiety and energy domains of the PANQOL were correlated with both physical and mental components of the SF-12. Hearing, balance, and pain domains were correlated with the SF-12 physical component. Facial and general domains were not significantly correlated with any component of the SF-12. Furthermore, the overall score of the PANQOL was correlated with the physical component of the SF-12. Conclusion. Feasibility, internal consistency, reliability, and construct validity outcomes in the current study support the validity of the Spanish version of the PANQOL.

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