首页> 外文期刊>European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology: Official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) >Reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the questionnaire of olfactory disorders (QOD) when used with patients having olfactory dysfunction
【24h】

Reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the questionnaire of olfactory disorders (QOD) when used with patients having olfactory dysfunction

机译:与嗅觉障碍患者配合使用时,中文版嗅觉障碍问卷(QOD)的信度和效度

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

To cross-culturally adapt the Questionnaire of olfactory disorders (QOD) into a Chinese version, and then evaluate its reliability and validity for testing patients with olfactory dysfunction. A Chinese version of the QOD was evaluated for test-retest reliability, split-half reliability, and internal consistency. The validity analysis included components of content validity and criterion-related validity, as well as comparisons between The Medical Outcomes Study's36-Item ShortForm Health Survey(SF-36)questionnaire and the WHO Quality of Life-BREF (WHOQOL-BREF)questionnaire. A total of 125 patients with olfactory dysfunction were tested, and 104 patients completed three different surveys (QOD, SF-36, and WHOQOL-BREF). The test-retest reliabilities of the QOD-Parosmia statements (QOD-P), QOD-Quality of life (QOD-QoL), and QOD-Visual simulation (QOD-VAS)sections were 0.802 (P < 0.001), 0.797 (P < 0.001), and 0.468 (P < 0.001), respectively, and the Cronbach's alpha coefficients of internal consistency were 0.473, 0.814, and 0.882, respectively. The split-half reliability was 0.70. No correlation was found between the QOD-P section and the SF-36; however, there were statistically significant correlations between the QOD-QoL andQOD-VAS sections and the SF-36. The same results were observed for correlations between the QOD and WHOQOL-BREF. The Chinese version of the QOD was proven to be a generally reliable and valid questionnaire for use in evaluating mainland Chinese patients suspected of having olfactory dysfunction. However, the QOD-P section requires further modifications to properly evaluate patients with a Chinese cultural background and type of cognition.
机译:要将跨文化的嗅觉障碍问卷(QOD)改成中文,然后评估其对嗅觉功能障碍患者进行测试的信度和效度。评估了中文版的QOD的重测信度,对分半信度和内部一致性。效度分析包括内容效度和与标准相关的效度的组成部分,以及《医学成果研究》的36项简短健康调查问卷(SF-36)和WHO生命质量BREF(WHOQOL-BREF)问卷之间的比较。总共测试了125位嗅觉障碍患者,其中104位患者完成了三项不同的调查(QOD,SF-36和WHOQOL-BREF)。 QOD-Parosmia陈述(QOD-P),QOD生活质量(QOD-QoL)和QOD-Visual模拟(QOD-VAS)部分的重测可靠性分别为0.802(P <0.001),0.797(P <0.001)和0.468(P <0.001),内部一致性的Cronbach'sα系数分别为0.473、0.814和0.882。分半信度为0.70。在QOD-P部分和SF-36之间未发现任何相关性。然而,QOD-QoL和QOD-VAS切片与SF-36之间存在统计学上的显着相关性。 QOD和WHOQOL-BREF之间的相关性观察到相同的结果。事实证明,中文版的QOD是用于评估怀疑患有嗅觉功能障碍的中国大陆患者的普遍可靠且有效的问卷。但是,QOD-P部分需要进一步修改,以正确评估具有中国文化背景和认知类型的患者。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号