4.5 Article

Adaptation and validation of the Dutch version of the nasal obstruction symptom evaluation (NOSE) scale

期刊

EUROPEAN ARCHIVES OF OTO-RHINO-LARYNGOLOGY
卷 274, 期 6, 页码 2469-2476

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00405-017-4486-y

关键词

NOSE scale; Quality of life; Nasal obstruction; Validation; Dutch language

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The nasal obstruction symptom evaluation (NOSE) scale is a validated disease-specific, self-completed questionnaire for the assessment of quality of life related to nasal obstruction. The aim of this study was to validate the Dutch (NL-NOSE) questionnaire. A prospective instrument validation study was performed in a tertiary academic referral center. Guidelines for the cross-cultural adaptation process from the original English language scale into a Dutch language version were followed. Patients undergoing functional septoplasty or septorhinoplasty and asymptomatic controls completed the questionnaire both before and 3 months after surgery to test reliability and validity. Additionally, we explored the possibility to reduce the NOSE scale even further using graded response models. 129 patients and 50 controls were included. Internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha 0.82) and test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.89) were good. The instrument showed excellent between-group discrimination (Mann-Whitney U = 85, p < 0.001) and high response sensitivity to change (Wilcoxon rank p < 0.001). The NL-NOSE correlated well with the score on a visual analog scale measuring the subjective sensation of nasal obstruction, with exception of item 4 (trouble sleeping). Item 4 provided the least information to the total scale and item 3 (trouble breathing through nose) the most, particularly in the postoperative group. The Dutch version of the NOSE (NL-NOSE) demonstrated satisfactory reliability and validity. We recommend the use of the NL-NOSE as a validated instrument to measure subjective severity of nasal obstruction in Dutch adult patients.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据