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'"

Am J Audiol. 2018 Mar 8;27(1):169-170. doi: 10.1044/2017_AJA-17-0102.

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.

Publication types

  • Comparative Study
  • Letter

MeSH terms

  • Adult
  • Audiologists
  • Audiometry / methods
  • Biomedical Research
  • Clinical Trials, Phase II as Topic
  • Databases, Factual
  • Female
  • Humans
  • Loudness Perception / physiology*
  • Male
  • Middle Aged
  • Patient Reported Outcome Measures*
  • Reproducibility of Results
  • Tinnitus / diagnosis*
  • Tinnitus / drug therapy*