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 purpose of this letter, in response to Hall, Mehta, and Fackrell (2017), is to provide important knowledge about methodology and statistical issues in assessing the reliability and validity of an audiologist-administered tinnitus loudness matching test and a patient-reported tinnitus loudness rating. Method The author uses reference ... Letter to the Editor
Letter to the Editor  |   March 08, 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
  • Siamak Sabour
    Department of Clinical Epidemiology, School of Health, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
    Safety Promotions and Injury Prevention Research Center, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
  • Disclosure: The author has declared that no competing interests existed at the time of publication.
    Disclosure: The author has declared that no competing interests existed at the time of publication. ×
  • Correspondence to Siamak Sabour: s.sabour@sbmu.ac.ir
  • 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
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, 167-168. doi:10.1044/2017_AJA-17-0086
History: Received August 28, 2017 , Accepted October 13, 2017
 
American Journal of Audiology, March 2018, Vol. 27, 167-168. doi:10.1044/2017_AJA-17-0086
History: Received August 28, 2017; Accepted October 13, 2017
Web of Science® Times Cited: 1

Purpose The purpose of this letter, in response to Hall, Mehta, and Fackrell (2017), is to provide important knowledge about methodology and statistical issues in assessing the reliability and validity of an audiologist-administered tinnitus loudness matching test and a patient-reported tinnitus loudness rating.

Method The author uses reference textbooks and published articles regarding scientific assessment of the validity and reliability of a clinical test to discuss the statistical test and the methodological approach in assessing validity and reliability in clinical research.

Results Depending on the type of the variable (qualitative or quantitative), well-known statistical tests can be applied to assess reliability and validity. The qualitative variables of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, false positive and false negative rates, likelihood ratio positive and likelihood ratio negative, as well as odds ratio (i.e., ratio of true to false results), are the most appropriate estimates to evaluate validity of a test compared to a gold standard. In the case of quantitative variables, depending on distribution of the variable, Pearson r or Spearman rho can be applied.

Conclusion Diagnostic accuracy (validity) and diagnostic precision (reliability or agreement) are two completely different methodological issues. Depending on the type of the variable (qualitative or quantitative), well-known statistical tests can be applied to assess validity.

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