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’” 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 ... Letter to the Editor
Letter to the Editor  |   March 08, 2018
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’”
 
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Deborah A. Hall
    National Institute for Health Research, Nottingham Biomedical Research Centre, England
    Otology and Hearing Group, Division of Clinical Neuroscience, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, England
  • Rajnikant L. Mehta
    School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, England
  • Kathryn Fackrell
    National Institute for Health Research, Nottingham Biomedical Research Centre, England
    Otology and Hearing Group, Division of Clinical Neuroscience, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, England
  • Disclosure: The authors have declared that no competing interests existed at the time of publication.
    Disclosure: The authors have declared that no competing interests existed at the time of publication. ×
  • Correspondence to Deborah Hall: deborah.hall@nottingham.ac.uk
  • Editor-in-Chief: Sumitrajit (Sumit) Dhar
    Editor-in-Chief: Sumitrajit (Sumit) Dhar×
  • Editor: Ryan McCreery
    Editor: Ryan McCreery×
Article Information
Hearing Disorders / Research Issues, Methods & Evidence-Based Practice / Letters to the Editor
Letter to the Editor   |   March 08, 2018
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’”
American Journal of Audiology, March 2018, Vol. 27, 169-170. doi:10.1044/2017_AJA-17-0102
History: Received October 23, 2017 , Accepted December 6, 2017
 
American Journal of Audiology, March 2018, Vol. 27, 169-170. doi:10.1044/2017_AJA-17-0102
History: Received October 23, 2017; Accepted December 6, 2017

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.

Order a Subscription
Pay Per View
Entire American Journal of Audiology content & archive
24-hour access
This Article
24-hour access