首页> 外文OA文献 >The use of research questionnaires with hearing impaired adults: online vs. paper-and-pencil administration
【2h】

The use of research questionnaires with hearing impaired adults: online vs. paper-and-pencil administration

机译:对患有听力障碍的成年人使用研究调查问卷:在线与纸笔管理

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

Background When evaluating hearing rehabilitation, it is reasonable to use self-report questionnaires as outcome measure. Questionnaires used in audiological research are developed and validated for the paper-and-pencil format. As computer and Internet use is increasing, standardized questionnaires used in the audiological context should be evaluated to determine the viability of the online administration format. The aim of this study was to compare administration of questionnaires online versus paper- and pencil of four standardised questionnaires used in hearing research and clinic. We included the Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly (HHIE), the International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids (IOI-HA), Satisfaction with Amplification in Daily Life (SADL), and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). Methods A cross-over design was used by randomly letting the participants complete the questionnaires either online or on paper. After 3 weeks the participants filled out the same questionnaires again but in the other format. A total of 65 hearing-aid users were recruited from a hearing clinic to participate on a voluntary basis and of these 53 completed both versions of the questionnaires. Results A significant main effect of format was found on the HHIE (p < 0.001), with participants reporting higher scores on the online format than in the paper format. There was no interaction effect. For the other questionnaires were no significant main or interaction effects of format. Significant correlations between the two ways of presenting the measures was found for all questionnaires (p<0.05). The results from reliability tests showed Cronbachs α’s above .70 for all four questionnaires and differences in Cronbachs α between administration formats were negligible. Conclusions For three of the four included questionnaires the participants’ scores remained consistent across administrations and formats. For the fourth included questionnaire (HHIE) a significant difference of format with a small effect size was found. The relevance of the difference in scores between the formats depends on which context the questionnaire is used in. On balance, it is recommended that the administration format remain stable across assessment points.
机译:背景技术在评估听力康复时,使用自我报告调查表作为结果指标是合理的。在听力研究中使用的问卷是针对纸笔格式开发和验证的。随着计算机和互联网使用的增加,应评估在听觉方面使用的标准化调查表,以确定在线管理格式的可行性。这项研究的目的是比较在线调查表的管理与纸质和铅笔在听力研究和临床中使用的四种标准化调查表的管理。我们包括了老年人的听力障碍清单(HHIE),国际助听结果清单(IOI-HA),日常生活中的满意度提高(SADL)以及医院焦虑和抑郁量表(HADS)。方法采用交叉设计方法,让参与者随机在线或纸上填写问卷。 3周后,参与者再次以其他格式填写相同的问卷。总共从听力诊所招募了65名助听器用户自愿参加,其中53名填写了两种版本的问卷。结果在HHIE上发现格式有重大的主要影响(p <0.001),参与者报告的在线格式得分高于纸质格式。没有交互作用。对于其他问卷,格式没有显着的主要或交互作用。在所有问卷中,两种表示方法的方法之间均存在显着相关性(p <0.05)。可靠性测试的结果表明,所有四份问卷的Cronbachsα均高于.70,而两种给药方式之间的Cronbachsα差异可忽略不计。结论对于所包括的四个调查表中的三个,参与者在各主管部门和形式上的得分保持一致。对于包含的第四个问卷(HHIE),发现格式的显着差异和较小的影响量。两种格式之间分数差异的相关性取决于所使用的调查表的背景。总的来说,建议管理格式在各个评估点之间保持稳定。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

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