Author Response to Sabour (2018), “Comment on Hall et al. (2017), ‘How to Choose Between Measures of Tinnitus Loudness for Clinical Research? A Report on the Reliability and Validity of an Investigator-Administered Test and a Patient-Reported Measure Using Baseline Data Collected in a Phase IIa Drug Trial’”

Deborah A. Hall, Rajnikant L. Mehta, Kathryn Fackrell

Research output: Contribution to journalLetterpeer-review

Abstract

Purpose: The authors respond to a letter to the editor (Sabour, 2018) concerning the interpretation of validity in the context of evaluating treatment-related change in tinnitus loudness over time.

Method: The authors refer to several landmark methodological publications and an international standard concerning the validity of patient-reported outcome measurement instruments.

Results: The tinnitus loudness rating performed better against our reported acceptability criteria for (face and convergent) validity than did the tinnitus loudness matching test.

Conclusion: It is important to distinguish between tests that evaluate the validity of measuring treatment-related change over time and tests that quantify the accuracy of diagnosing tinnitus as a case and non-case.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)169-170
Number of pages2
JournalAmerican Journal of Audiology
Volume27
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Mar 2018

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Speech and Hearing

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Author Response to Sabour (2018), “Comment on Hall et al. (2017), ‘How to Choose Between Measures of Tinnitus Loudness for Clinical Research? A Report on the Reliability and Validity of an Investigator-Administered Test and a Patient-Reported Measure Using Baseline Data Collected in a Phase IIa Drug Trial’”'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this