Central Annals of Otolaryngology and Rhinology

Cite this article: Lazzarotto S, Baumstarck K, Auquier P (2016) Age-Related Hearing Impairment and Impact on Quality of Life: A Review of Available Questionnaires. Ann Otolaryngol Rhinol 3(5): 1107.

*Corresponding author

Karine Baumstarck, EA 3279, Self-perceived Health Assessment Research Unit, School of Medicine, Aix-Marseille Université, 27 bd Jean Moulin, Marseille cedex 05, F-13385 France, Tel: 33 491 384 744, Fax: 33 491 384 482; Email:

Submitted: 07 April 2016

Accepted: 26 April 2016

Published: 28 April 2016

ISSN: 2379-948X

Copyright© 2016 Baumstarck et al.

OPEN ACCESS

Keywords•Age-related hearing loss•Quality of life•Questionnaire•Hearing handicap inventory for elderly

Short Communication

Age-Related Hearing Impairment and Impact on Quality of Life: A Review of Available QuestionnairesSébastien Lazzarotto, Karine Baumstarck* and Pascal AuquierSelf-perceived Health Assessment Research Unit, School of Medicine, Aix Marseille University, France

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study was to provide an overview of instruments available to assess the impact of age-related hearing loss (ARHL) on quality of life (QoL), and recommendations and guidance for clinicians that including their respective strengths and shortcomings.

Methods: The search of the literature was performed from 1983 to 2013. The following papers were selected: related to the development or validation process for disease-specific questionnaires, related to the use of generic questionnaires on ARHL populations. A standardized data collection form was generated referring to different aspects of validation: general characteristics (name and acronym, year of publication, original language, number of items, response scale, domains, scoring, and completion time…), population, psychometric properties.

Results: One hundred and twenty papers were analysed. Two questionnaires explored specifically the impact of hearing impairment on QoL; only one had been specifically developed to explore QoL among individuals with ARHL: the Hearing Handicap Inventory for Elderly. Two instruments explored the impact on the QoL and daily life of conditions/symptoms that can be linked to a hearing loss (dizziness and tinnitus). Among the studies assessing the QoL using generic questionnaires, two questionnaires were identified: SF-36 and WHO-QOL BREF.

Conclusion: This literature review identified two ARHL-specific instruments supporting the possibility of developing a new instrument using more recent standard methods of development. Recommendations could be based on: item generation based exclusively on the patient’s point of view, a validation process performed on a large and representative population of patients with ARHL.

ABBREVIATIONSARHL: age-related hearing loss; DHI: Dizziness Handicap

Inventory; EMA: European Medicines Agency; FDA: Food and Drug Administration; HHIE: Hearing Handicap Inventory for Elderly; HHIA: Hearing Handicap Inventory for Adult; QoL: Quality of life; SF-36: Short Form Health Survey; THI: Tinnitus Handicap Inventory; WHOQOL-BREF: World Health Organization Quality of Life BREF

INTRODUCTIONHearing impairment is one of the most common disabilities in

humans, affecting more than 250 million people in the world [1]. In France, 70% of hearing-impaired people are over 60 years of

age [2]. Aging is the most common cause of hearing impairment and is referred to as age-related hearing loss (ARHL).

The consequences of ARHL include difficulty interpreting speech sounds, often resulting in a reduced ability to communicate, and impairing emotional, physical, and social functions. Indeed, this can lead to cognitive deficits, mood disturbances, social isolation, and stigmatization [3]. Physical skills should be deteriorated due to coexistent vestibular pathology, reduced spatial awareness, increasing the risk for falls. Some authors have reported the impact of hearing loss on the social/familial life of the individuals, leading to progressive social deprivation, and deterioration of the quality of life (QoL) of the individuals [4-9].

A variety of hearing assessment measures is available

Central

Baumstarck et al. (2016)Email:

Ann Otolaryngol Rhinol 3(5): 1107 (2016) 2/8

to audiologists in their evaluation of ARHL (pure-tone and speech audiometry, electrophysiological measures, and self-assessment handicap scales). While the hearing disability is important to assess, it is now well recognized that it does not reflect a complete picture of an individual’s hearing in daily life. Encouraged by the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency [10,11], QoL assessment is being considered increasingly important with regard to evaluating population health, therapeutics and management of care to patients with chronic illnesses. QoL is commonly assessed using self-reported questionnaires. It is important to have robust, valid, and reliable measures to fully explore the effectiveness of any intervention. The aims of our study were to provide the following: i) an overview of instruments available to assess the impact of ARHL on daily living and QoL; ii) the psychometric properties and the content of these questionnaires; iii) guidance for clinicians, including evidence of the utility of the instruments and their respective strengths and shortcomings.

METHODOLOGYSearch strategy

A search of the literature (1983 to 2013) was conducted to identify studies that focused on the impact of age-related hearing impairment on QoL and daily life. The Medical Subject Headings were determined by the following significant terms: [“quality of life” OR “daily life”] AND [“hearing impairment” OR “hearing-impaired”]. One of the authors (SL) made an initial selection based on the titles and abstracts of all retrieved articles. The following abstracts were not selected: letters to the editor, case reports, case series, medico economic studies, studies reporting findings focused on hearing rehabilitation, hearing surgery, and hearing disability assessment, and non-English language studies.

Selection criteria

The first selection identified 120 papers. A second selection was made in accordance with the following criteria: i) inclusion criteria: articles related to the development or validation process for disease-specific questionnaires, articles related to the use of generic questionnaires on ARHL populations; ii) exclusion criteria: articles only focused on populations of children and young adults. Additional articles detailing psychometric characteristics or the instruments’ development processes were identified in the article reference lists and added to the initial selection. Articles reporting transcultural validation were also added.

Analysis strategy of instruments

To analyze the content of the articles, we generated a standardized data collection form referring to different aspects of development of an instrument [12-14]. The data collection differed according to whether the QoL questionnaire was a specific or generic instrument.

1. For the specific instruments, the following items were recorded:

• General characteristics: name of the questionnaire and acronym, authors, year of publication, original language, other available languages,

• Characteristics of the questionnaire: number of items, modalities of response scale (Likert scale, yes/no),

number and names of explored domains, scoring (index, subscores, missing data management), administration modalities (self- or proxy-report), time reference (previous week, month), completion time.

• Characteristics of the validation population: inclusion criteria and sample size.

• Characteristics of the item generation process (literature review, expert experiences, patient interview analyses, or combined approach)

• Psychometric properties (the definitions of the main psychometric properties were summarized in the table 1):

- construct validity: final structure and the number of independent dimensions,

- internal consistency: item-internal consistency (IIC) and item discriminant validity (IDV) assessed by correlations between each item with its scale and other scales [15],

- internal structural validity: Cronbach’s alpha coefficient [15],

- unidimensionality: Rasch statistics,

- external and discriminant validity: relationships between the scores and other (objective and subjective) measures,

- reproducibility: capacity to produce the same score between two assessments of the measure when the health status is stable (test-retest: correlation coefficients [16],

- Sensitivity to change: capacity to detect a change between two assessments of the measure when the health status has changed (effect size).

2. For the generic instruments, the following items were recorded:

• General characteristics: name of the questionnaire and acronym, original language of the questionnaire,

• Characteristics of the questionnaire: number of items, modalities of response scale (Likert scale, yes/no), number and names of explored domains, scoring (index, subscores, missing data management), administration modalities (self- or proxy-report), time reference (previous week, month), completion time, item generation process,

• Number of articles using the generic questionnaire in ARHL populations (Figure 1).

RESULTS The analysis of the citations indicated that 1 instrument had

been specifically developed to explore QoL among individuals with ARHL and 1 specifically developed to explore QoL of individuals with hearing loss. We also analyzed 2 other instruments that have been specifically developed to quantify the impact on the QoL and daily life of conditions/symptoms [17] that can be linked to a hearing loss, such as tinnitus and dizziness. Among the studies assessing the QoL of individuals with ARHL that did not use specific questionnaires, two main generic questionnaires were identified.

Central

Baumstarck et al. (2016)Email:

Ann Otolaryngol Rhinol 3(5): 1107 (2016) 3/8

Table 1: Psychometric properties: definitions and tests used to explore.

General A valid QoL measure refers to the extent to which a concept is well-founded and corresponds accurately to the ‘real world’. The validity of a QoL measurement is considered to be the degree to which the tool measures what it claims to measure

Reliability The reliability or internal consistency is the extent to which a measurement gives consistent results, i.e. the extent with which a set of items in a dimension measures the same attribute. Reliability is assessed by the computation of Cronbach’s alpha coefficients. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients higher than 0.70 result satisfactory reliability.

Internal Validity • Content validity is a non-statistical type of validity that involves the examination of the questionnaire content to determine whether it covers all the aspects of the domain to be measured.

• Construct validity refers to the extent to which the questionnaire developed from a theory do actually measure what the theory says they do. It mainly relies on statistical analyses of the internal structure of the questionnaire including the relationships between responses to different items. Construct validity was assessed by performing:

- Exploratory or confirmatory factorial analyses: in the case of confirmatory factorial analysis, a Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure higher than 0.50 and a total variance higher than 70% indicate that the number of identified factors (or QoL dimensions) fit to the model;

- Rash analysis to explore the unidimensionality of each domain identified: unidimensionality is retained if item goodness-of-fit (INFIT) statistics values range from 0.7 to 1.2;

- Computation of correlation coefficients: correlation coefficients of each item with its dimension (item internal consistency, IIC) higher than 0.40 and higher than the correlation coefficients of this item with other dimensions (item discriminant validity, IDV) reflect a satisfactory construct validity.

External validity External validity concerns the extent to which the internal construct can be support by external criteria. External validity relies on assessment of:

• Convergent validity: relationships between the dimensions of the questionnaire and the dimensions of other previously validated questionnaires measuring the same concept;

• Criterion validity: relationships between the dimensions of the questionnaire and other features: sociodemographic, or clinical features…

Figure 1 A PRISMA flow diagram.

Specific questionnaires of hearing impairment exploring quality of life

• The Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly (HHIE)

This is the single instrument that was developed for evaluating the impact of hearing loss on daily life/QoL in elderly individuals.

Developed in 1982 [18-20], HHIE is designed as a self-assessment tool for evaluating the emotional and social problems elderly people experience because of hearing loss. Item development was based on both gerontological literature and an audiological perspective. The final version consists of 25 questions. Each question has 3 response options (no [score: 0], sometimes [score:

Central

Baumstarck et al. (2016)Email:

Ann Otolaryngol Rhinol 3(5): 1107 (2016) 4/8

2], and yes [score: 4]). The total score ranges from 0 to 100 (the higher the score, the greater the perceived hearing handicap). The validation sample included 100 patients, both with and without hearing impairment, over age 65. No information on construct validity and unidimensionality was provided. Some indicators of internal structure were performed showing satisfactory findings [19]. Exploration of external validity was incomplete: the scores of the HHIE moderately correlated with hearing handicap assessed using 3-frequency pure-tone testing [19, 20]. Reliability, reported from 2 main publications [21, 22], was satisfactory. No data related to sensitivity to change were found. The details are provided in table 2.

• The Hearing Handicap Inventory for Adults (HHIA)

The HHIA was proposed by the developers of HHIE. The HHIA is based on a modified version of the HHIE to be used with individuals aged below 65 years. Three questions, contributed

by experts, were modified to include items identifying the effects of hearing loss on occupational issues because [23]. The number of items, the name of dimensions, and the scoring were strictly identical to the HHIE. The initial validation population included 67 adults from 18 to 65 years of age, both with and without hearing impairment. The structure of the instrument was not given. The instrument presents satisfactory internal consistency and reliability, but some indicators were not provided. External validity was tested using audiometric measures. Reliability was tested on a small sample of 28 individuals [24]. Some other languages were available [25-27]. The details are provided in table 2.

Condition-specific instruments of related-symptoms to hearing impairment exploring quality of life

The Dizziness Handicap Inventory (DHI) was developed by Jacobson & Newman to evaluate the self-perceived handicapping

Table 2: Specific questionnaires of hearing impairment exploring quality of life.

Name Hearing Handicap Inventory for Elderly Hearing Handicap Inventory for Adults

Acronym HHIE HHIA

1. Paper validation

Authors Ventry & Weinstein Newman et al.

Year of publication 1982 1990

Original language English (USA) English (USA)

2. Characteristics of the questionnaire

Number of items 25 25

Response modality Likert: 3 possible answersYes (4 pts)/sometimes (2)/no (0)

Likert: 3 possible answersYes (4 pts)/sometimes (2)/no (0)

Number of domains 2 2

Name of domains (number of items) Emotional (13)Social/situational (12)

Emotional (13)Social (12)

Scoring and ranges

Emotional score 0-52Social score 0-48Global score 0-100Higher score, greater perception of handicap

Emotional score 0-52Social score 0-48Global score 0-100Higher score, greater perception of handicap

Administration modality Self-report Self-report

Time reference None (‘in general…’) None (‘in general…’)

Completion time 10 minutes 10 minutes

3. Validation population

Age range Adults over 65 years Adults 18-65 years

Sample size 100 67

Inclusion criteriaCommunity-based individualsof speech/hearing centersSignificant, little, and no hearing impairment

OutpatientsNormal hearing and hearing loss

Other populations urban homeless shelter

4. Validation process

Item generation Literature reviewExperts’ point of view

HHIEExperts’ point of view

Construct validity NP (no principal component factor analysis) NP

Central

Baumstarck et al. (2016)Email:

Ann Otolaryngol Rhinol 3(5): 1107 (2016) 5/8

Internal consistency(Cr alpha coeff a)

Emotional 0.93Social 0.88Total 0.95

Emotional 0.88 Social 0.85 Total 0.93

Internal structureIICb and IDVb not distinguishedrc inter-item [0.09-0.72]rc inter-dimensions [0.87-0.97]

IICb and IDVb not distinguishedrc inter-item [0.09-0.68]rc inter-dimensions [0.84-0.96]

Unidimensionality NP NP

External/discriminant validity 3-frequency pure-tone: rc=0.61(HHIE total score and dB score)

Speech frequency pure tone: rc [0.33-0.34] p<0.05High frequency pure tone: rc [0.29-0.35] p<0.05Word recognition: rc [0.26-0.28] p<0.05

Reproducibility N=47high test-retest reliability

N=28rd: [0.93-0.97]

Sensitivity to change NP NP

NP non provided(a) Cr alpha coeff: Cronbach’ alpha coefficient (at least 0.7 expected)(b) IIC: item-internal consistency (item with its scale, at least 0.4 expected), IDV: Item Discriminant Validity (item with other scales, expected inferior to IDV) (c) r Pearson’s correlation coefficient (d) r test-retest statistics (at least 0.8 expected)

effects of vestibular system disease [28]. The instrument was modeled on the HHIE to quantify changes that can result from an intervention. The Tinnitus Handicap Inventory (THI) was developed by Newman et al. to quantify the impact of tinnitus on daily living [29]. Item development was performed based on HHIE, HHIA, and DHI questionnaires. These two related-symptoms to hearing impairment instruments are widely used in auditory diseases like tinnitus, sensorineural hearing loss and Meniere, and less used for the assessment of the impact of ARHL [30-40].

Generic instruments used in the assessment of the impact of hearing impairment

Two generic instruments were used in the assessment of QoL of hearing-impaired populations: the Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), the World Health Organization Quality of Life BREF (WHOQOL-BREF).

• The SF-36 is a generic questionnaire used worldwide [41] describing eight subscales (physical function, social functioning, role-physical, role-emotional, mental health, vitality, bodily pain, and general health). Two composite scores (physical and mental) can be calculated. International norms are available and allow for the comparison of varying populations [42]. Sixty-six studies used the SF-36 in the assessment of QoL of hearing-impaired populations including some performed on older populations [43-45]. These studies involved different aims: assessment of intervention efficacy [44,46,47], assessment of the impact of the hearing impairment on QoL[4, 36, 43, 45, 48-50]. Comparison of QoL levels between different population [51, 52], and prediction of occurrence of health events [53].

• The WHOQOL-BREF is a well-validated [54] generic questionnaire used worldwide [55, 56] that describes four domains using 26 items: physical health, psychological health, social relationships, and environment. Six studies used this questionnaire, only one of which was performed on non-deaf individuals. The WHO-QOL demonstrated satisfactory reliability for deaf individuals [57].

The details are provided in table 3.

DISCUSSIONProviding valid and reliable instruments is a substantial

challenge to help assisting health authorities and/or clinicians.

Table 3: Generic questionnaires used on hearing-impaired elderly populations.Name Short Form (36)

Health SurveyWorld Health Organization Quality of Life BREF

Acronym SF-36 WHOQoL-BREF

Original language English English

Number of items 36 26

Response modality Likert Likert

Number of domains 8 4

Domains physical functioningrole physicalbodily paingeneral healthvitalitysocial functioningrole-emotionalmental health

physical healthpsychological healthsocial relationshipsenvironment

Scoring 1 score per dimension1 mental composite score1 physical composite score

1 score per dimension

Administration modality

Self-report Self-report

Time reference 4 weeks currently

Completion time 5-10 minutes 5-10 minutes

Item generation Literature reviewExperts’ point of view

Literature reviewExperts’ point of view

Number of articles of use

Central

Baumstarck et al. (2016)Email:

Ann Otolaryngol Rhinol 3(5): 1107 (2016) 6/8

Health authorities should be encouraged to optimize the use of financial resources [58], to show agents the effectiveness of audiologic services rendered. The development and validation process of instruments should be performed in accordance with typical standards [12, 14, 59, 60].

This study highlights the lack of specific instruments exploring the impact of hearing impairment on the daily life of elderly individuals. The Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly (HHIE) received considerable attention when it was first developed; its popularity may be attributed to its brevity, ease of administration, high internal consistency, and test-retest reliability. However, some important limitations should be mentioned. The content of the questionnaire was based on expert opinions. This approach is now recognized as less appropriate and informative compared to the procedure based on patients’ points of view [61]. Interviews with patients provide an important contribution to the understanding of people living with a specific condition and allow the screening of all aspects of daily life that the disease, condition or symptom may impact for individuals. The validation papers reported restricting data regarding the construct and the structure of the questionnaire. While internal consistency and internal structure were fully explored with satisfactory results, external validity was minimally explored. While reproducibility was available, sensitivity to change, defined as the ability to detect a meaningful change, was never explored. This last property, also called responsiveness, is a core psychometric property of a measurement instrument [62,63]. Examination requires longitudinal data collection and is therefore rarely reported.

Comments should be made about the populations used for validation. The sample sizes were small. The population included both hearing impaired and non-impaired individuals who would be not appropriate in a process of validation. Validation population should be composed of individuals presenting with the disease or condition.

To our knowledge, no normative values were provided for these specific questionnaires. One of the difficulties encountered by clinicians when interpreting a QoL score is the lack of normative values. The QoL scores of the reference population described in the validation publications are often used as normative values, although these may or may not be representative of this specific reference population.

Generic instruments are also frequently used to assess QoL in individuals with ARHL. One advantage of generic instruments compared to specific is the possibility to compare QoL across populations presenting with different conditions or diseases, while disease-specific instruments focus on particular health problems and are generally more sensitive for detecting and quantifying small changes [64]. Most of the studies combined the use of the two types of questionnaires, optimizing the ability to highlight changes or differences between groups or over time.

CONCLUSIONThis literature review identified only two ARHL-specific

instruments that have been psychometrically validated with varying evidence supporting the possibility of developing a new instrument using more recent standard methods of development.

Recommendations could be based on the following principles: i) item generation based exclusively on the patient’s point of view using semi-structured interviews, ii) a validation process performed on a large and representative population of patients with ARHL.

REFERENCES1. Mathers C, Smith A, Concha M. Global burden of hearing loss in the

year 2000. In: Global Burden of Disease (online). Geneva: World Health Organization; 2000.

2. DREES. Le handicap auditif en France: apports de l’enquête Handicaps, incapacités, dépendance, 1998-1999. Paris: Direction de la recherche, des études, de l’évaluation et des statistiques. 2007.

3. Murray CJL, Lopez AD. The global burden of disease: a comprehensive assessment of mortality and disability from diseases, injuries and risk factors in 1990 and projected to 2020 (Global Burden of disease and Injury Series). Press HU, editor. Cambridge1996.

4. Dalton DS, Cruickshanks KJ, Klein BE, Klein R, Wiley TL, Nondahl DM. The impact of hearing loss on quality of life in older adults. Gerontologist. 2003; 43: 661-668.

5. Gilhome Herbst KR, Meredith R, Stephens SD. Implications of hearing impairment for elderly people in London and in Wales. Acta Otolaryngol Suppl. 1990; 476: 209-214.

6. Vesterager V, Salomon G, Jagd M. Age-related hearing difficulties. II. Psychological and sociological consequences of hearing problems--a controlled study. Audiology. 1988; 27: 179-192.

7. Salomon G. Hearing problems and the elderly. Dan Med Bull. 1986; 33 Suppl 3: 1-22.

8. Mulrow CD, Aguilar C, Endicott JE, Velez R, Tuley MR, Charlip WS, et al. Association between hearing impairment and the quality of life of elderly individuals. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1990; 38: 45-50.

9. Campbell VA, Crews JE, Moriarty DG, Zack MM, Blackman DK. Surveillance for sensory impairment, activity limitation, and health-related quality of life among older adults--United States, 1993-1997. MMWR CDC Surveill Summ. 1999; 48: 131-156.

10. FDA. Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry: patient reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims. 2012.

11. EMA. European medicines agency. Reflection Paper on the Regulatory Guidance for the Use of Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQL) Measures in the Evaluation of Medicinal Products. London. 2006.

12. Crocker L, Algina J. Introduction to classical and modern test theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston; 1986.

13. Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 1951; 16: 297-334.

14. Juniper EF, Guyatt GH, Mesbah M, Ravaud P. Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven; 1996.

15. Carey RG, Seibert JH. A patient survey system to measure quality improvement: questionnaire reliability and validity. Med Care. 1993; 31: 834-845.

16. Nunnaly JC, Bernstein IC. Psychometric theory. New York: Mc Graw-Hill; 1994.

17. Johnston BC, Patrick DL, Busse JW, Schünemann HJ, Agarwal A, Guyatt GH. Patient-reported outcomes in meta-analyses--Part 1: assessing risk of bias and combining outcomes. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2013; 11: 109.

Central

Baumstarck et al. (2016)Email:

Ann Otolaryngol Rhinol 3(5): 1107 (2016) 7/8

18. Nobel WG. Assessment of Impaired Hearing. A Critique and a New Method. New York: Academic Press; 1978.

19. Ventry IM, Weinstein BE. The hearing handicap inventory for the elderly: a new tool. Ear Hear. 1982; 3: 128-134.

20. Weinstein BE, Ventry IM. Audiometric correlates of the Hearing Handicap Inventory for the elderly. J Speech Hear Disord. 1983; 48: 379-384.

21. Newman CW, Weinstein BE. Test-retest reliability of the Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly using two administration approaches. Ear Hear. 1989; 10: 190-191.

22. Weinstein BE, Spitzer JB, Ventry IM. Test-retest reliability of the Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly. Ear Hear. 1986; 7: 295-299.

23. Newman CW, Weinstein BE, Jacobson GP, Hug GA. The Hearing Handicap Inventory for Adults: psychometric adequacy and audiometric correlates. Ear Hear. 1990; 11: 430-433.

24. Newman CW, Weinstein BE, Jacobson GP, Hug GA. Test-retest reliability of the hearing handicap inventory for adults. Ear Hear. 1991; 12: 355-357.

25. Monzani D, Genovese E, Palma S, Rovatti V, Borgonzoni M, Martini A. Measuring the psychosocial consequences of hearing loss in a working adult population: focus on validity and reliability of the Italian translation of the hearing handicap inventory. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital. 2007; 27: 186-191.

26. Aiello CP, Lima II, Ferrari DV. Validity and reliability of the hearing handicap inventory for adults. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol. 2011; 77: 432-438.

27. Sato M, Ogawa K, Inoue Y, Masuda M. [Adaptation of Japanese version of the Hearing Handicap Inventory for Adults (HHIA)]. Nihon Jibiinkoka Gakkai Kaiho. 2004; 107: 489-493.

28. Jacobson GP, Newman CW. The development of the Dizziness Handicap Inventory. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1990; 116: 424-427.

29. Newman CW, Jacobson GP, Spitzer JB. Development of the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1996; 122: 143-148.

30. Baguley DM, Andersson G. Factor analysis of the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory. Am J Audiol. 2003; 12: 31-34.

31. Tobias CA, Llanes EG, Chiong C. Validity of a filipino translation of the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory. Int Tinnitus J. 2012; 17: 64-69.

32. Limviriyakul S, Supavanich W. The validity and reliability of tinnitus handicap inventory Thai version. J Med Assoc Thai. 2012; 95: 1433-1440.

33. Ghulyan-Bédikian V, Paolino M, Giorgetti-D’Esclercs F, Paolino F. Psychometric properties of a French adaptation of the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory. Encephale. 2010; 36: 390-396.

34. Kam AC, Cheung AP, Chan PY, Leung EK, Wong TK, van Hasselt CA, et al. Psychometric properties of the Chinese (Cantonese) Tinnitus Handicap Inventory. Clin Otolaryngol. 2009; 34: 309-315.

35. Mahmoudian S, Shahmiri E, Rouzbahani M, Jafari Z, Keyhani M, Rahimi F, et al. Persian language version of the “Tinnitus Handicap Inventory”: translation, standardization, validity and reliability. Int Tinnitus J. 2011;16: 93-103.

36. Monzani D, Galeazzi GM, Genovese E, Marrara A, Martini A. Psychological profile and social behaviour of working adults with mild or moderate hearing loss. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital. 2008; 28: 61-66.

37. Aksoy S, Firat Y, Alpar R. The Tinnitus Handicap Inventory: a study of validity and reliability. Int Tinnitus J. 2007; 13: 94-98.

38. Schmidt LP, Teixeira VN, Dall’Igna C, Dallagnol D, Smith MM. Brazilian Portuguese Language version of the “Tinnitus Handicap Inventory”: validity and reproducibility. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol. 2006; 72: 808-810.

39. Zeman F, Koller M, Schecklmann M, Langguth B, Landgrebe M. Tinnitus assessment by means of standardized self-report questionnaires: psychometric properties of the Tinnitus Questionnaire (TQ), the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory (THI), and their short versions in an international and multi-lingual sample. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2012; 10:128.

40. Newman CW, Sandridge SA, Bolek L. Development and psychometric adequacy of the screening version of the tinnitus handicap inventory. Otol Neurotol. 2008; 29: 276-281.

41. Leplège A, Ecosse E, Verdier A, Perneger TV. The French SF-36 Health Survey: translation, cultural adaptation and preliminary psychometric evaluation. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998; 51: 1013-1023.

42. Maruish ME. User’s Manual for the SF-36v2® Health Survey. 3rd. Inc; Q, editor: Lincoln; 2011.

43. Chia EM1, Wang JJ, Rochtchina E, Cumming RR, Newall P, Mitchell P. Hearing impairment and health-related quality of life: the Blue Mountains Hearing Study. Ear Hear. 2007; 28: 187-195.

44. Magalhães R, Iório MC. Quality of life and participation restrictions, a study in elderly. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol. 2011; 77: 628-638.

45. Wong LL, Cheng LK. Quality of life in older Chinese-speaking adults with hearing impairment. Disabil Rehabil. 2012; 34: 655-664.

46. Fischer ME, Cruickshanks KJ, Klein BE, Klein R, Schubert CR, Wiley TL. Multiple sensory impairment and quality of life. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2009; 16: 346-353.

47. Mulrow CD, Tuley MR, Aguilar C. Sustained benefits of hearing aids. J Speech Hear Res. 1992; 35: 1402-1405.

48. Chew HS, Yeak S. Quality of life in patients with untreated age-related hearing loss. J Laryngol Otol. 2010; 124: 835-841.

49. Gopinath B, McMahon CM, Rochtchina E, Mitchell P. Dizziness and vertigo in an older population: the Blue Mountains prospective cross-sectional study. Clin Otolaryngol. 2009; 34: 552-556.

50. Lopez D, McCaul KA, Hankey GJ, Norman PE, Almeida OP, Dobson AJ, et al. Falls, injuries from falls, health related quality of life and mortality in older adults with vision and hearing impairment--is there a gender difference? Maturitas. 2011;69:359-364.

51. Horner-Johnson W, Krahn GL, Suzuki R, Peterson JJ, Roid G, Hall T, et al. Differential performance of SF-36 items in healthy adults with and without functional limitations. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2010; 91: 570-575.

52. Pugh KC, Crandell CC. Hearing loss, hearing handicap, and functional health status between African American and Caucasian American seniors. J Am Acad Audiol. 2002; 13: 493-502.

53. Gopinath B, McMahon CM, Rochtchina E, Karpa MJ, Mitchell P. Risk factors and impacts of incident tinnitus in older adults. Ann Epidemiol. 2010; 20: 129-135.

54. Skevington SM, Lotfy M, O’Connell KA; WHOQOL Group. The World Health Organization’s WHOQOL-BREF quality of life assessment: psychometric properties and results of the international field trial. A report from the WHOQOL group. Qual Life Res. 2004; 13: 299-310.

55. Power M, Harper A, Bullinger M. The World Health Organization WHOQOL-100: tests of the universality of Quality of Life in 15 different cultural groups worldwide. Health Psychol. 1999; 18: 495-505.

56. [No authors listed]. Development of the World Health Organization

Central

Baumstarck et al. (2016)Email:

Ann Otolaryngol Rhinol 3(5): 1107 (2016) 8/8

Lazzarotto S, Baumstarck K, Auquier P (2016) Age-Related Hearing Impairment and Impact on Quality of Life: A Review of Available Questionnaires. Ann Otolar-yngol Rhinol 3(5): 1107.

Cite this article

WHOQOL-BREF quality of life assessment. The WHOQOL Group. Psychol Med. 1998; 28: 551-558.

57. Fellinger J, Holzinger D, Dobner U, Gerich J, Lehner R, Lenz G, et al. An innovative and reliable way of measuring health-related quality of life and mental distress in the deaf community. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2005; 40: 245-250.

58. Patrick DL, Erikson P. Health status and health policy: allocating resources to health care. New York: Oxford University Press; 1993.

59. Apolone G, De Carli G, Brunetti M, Garattini S. Health-related quality of life (HR-QOL) and regulatory issues. An assessment of the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products (EMEA) recommendations on the use of HR-QOL measures in drug approval. Pharmacoeconomics. 2001; 19:187-195.

60. Bottomley A, Jones D, Claassens L. Patient-reported outcomes:

assessment and current perspectives of the guidelines of the Food and Drug Administration and the reflection paper of the European Medicines Agency. Eur J Cancer. 2009;45: 347-353.

61. Britten N. Qualitative interviews in medical research. BMJ. 1995; 311: 251-253.

62. Meric HJ. The effect of scale form choice on psychometric properties of patient satisfaction measurement. Health Mark Q. 1994; 11: 27-39.

63. Guyatt GH, Deyo RA, Charlson M, Levine MN, Mitchell A. Responsiveness and validity in health status measurement: a clarification. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2003; 3: 493-504.

64. Patrick DL, Deyo RA. Generic and disease-specific measures in assessing health status and quality of life. Med Care. 1989; 27: S217-232.