4.5 Article Proceedings Paper

Test-Retest Reliability of the San Diego Odor Identification Test and Comparison with the Brief Smell Identification Test

Journal

CHEMICAL SENSES
Volume 34, Issue 5, Pages 435-440

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/chemse/bjp018

Keywords

epidemiology; impairment; methods; olfaction

Funding

  1. NIA NIH HHS [R01 AG021917, R01 AG021917-07, R01 AG021917-04, R01 AG021917-01A1, AG021917, R01 AG021917-01A1S1, R01 AG021917-05, R01 AG021917-06, R01 AG021917-02, R01 AG021917-03] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study described the San Diego Odor Identification Test (SDOIT) reliability and compared the SDOIT and the Brief Smell Identification Test (B-SIT). Ninety participants aged 50-70 years completed this 2-visit olfaction study. During visit 1, the SDOIT and B-SIT were administered according to standard protocols. Three weeks later, participants returned to retake the SDOIT. The SDOIT score was the total number of odorants correctly identified out of 8 odorants presented, and olfactory impairment was defined as correctly identifying less than 6 odorants. The B-SIT score was the total number of odorants correctly identified out of 12 odorants presented, and participants correctly identifying less than 9 odorants were categorized as abnormal. The SDOIT reliability was high (concordance correlation coefficient = 0.85, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.79-0.91). The same score was obtained on retest for 73% of participants, whereas 18% improved, and 9% declined. Test-retest agreement was 96% for the SDOIT; 4% improved from impaired at visit 1 to unimpaired at visit 2. Overall, SDOIT impairment classification and B-SIT abnormal classification agreed in 96% of participants (kappa = 0.81, 95% CI = 0.63-0.99). In conclusion, the SDOIT showed good test-retest reliability. Agreement for impaired/abnormal olfaction was demonstrated for the SDOIT and the B-SIT.

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