Download PDF
Laryngorhinootologie 2013; 92(02): 80-89
DOI: 10.1055/s-0032-1329966
Übersicht
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Fragebogenassessments für die Hörgerätekontrolle

Assessment Inventories for Hearing Aid Outcome
S. Miller
1   MHH, Klinik und Poliklinik für Phoniatrie und Pädaudiologie, Hannover
,
D. Kühn
1   MHH, Klinik und Poliklinik für Phoniatrie und Pädaudiologie, Hannover
,
M. Ptok
1   MHH, Klinik und Poliklinik für Phoniatrie und Pädaudiologie, Hannover
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
22 November 2012 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Zusammenfassung

Hintergrund:

Anfang dieses Jahres sind neue Gebührenordnungspositionen zur Hörgeräteversorgung bei Jugendlichen und Erwachsenen in den „Einheitlichen Bewertungsmaßstab“ (EBM) aufgenommen worden. Zur Qualitätssicherungsvereinbarung der Hörgeräteversorgung wird die Anwendung eines Fragebogens als obligater Leistungsinhalt gefordert. Hier soll ein Überblick über solche Fragebögenassessments und ihre Testgütekriterien gegeben werden.

Methodik:

Übersichtsarbeit nach selektiver Literaturrecherche in PubMed.

Ergebnisse:

Es existiert eine Vielzahl an Fragebögen, die den eventuellen Nutzen einer Hörgeräteversorgung für die betroffenen Schwerhörigen objektivieren sollen. Viele Evaluationsstudien stammen aus den 80er bzw. frühen 90er Jahren des letzten Jahrhunderts und basieren auf den damals gängigen analogen Hörgeräten. Somit sind die Auswertungen nicht automatisch auf gängige digitale Geräte übertragbar. Nur eine geringe Anzahl der Tests wurde neben der meist englischen Originalversion auch in der deutschen Übersetzung ausreichend evaluiert.

Diskussion:

Jeder HNO-Arzt, der in der Hörgeräteversorgung Fragebögenassessments anwendet, sollte über die jeweiligen, wesentlichen Testgütekriterien informiert sein, um den Wert des mit dem Fragebogen erhaltenen Ergebnisses adäquat einschätzen zu können.

Abstract

Assessment Inventories for Hearing Aid Outcome

Background:

At the beginning of 2012 new fee schedule positions have been introduced to the ambulatory physician fee schedule (“Einheitlicher Bewertungsmaßstab”, EBM) regarding the hearing aid fittings of youngsters and adults. With regards to quality assurance the use of a hearing aid outcome self-assessment inventory is made compulsive. This article aims to review available hearing aid (self-) assessment inventories as well as the evaluations regarding criteria for test quality implemented.

Method:

For this systematic review a selective literature research in PubMed has been carried out.

Results:

There are various self assessment inventories measuring hearing aid benefit. Many of the studies evaluating these inventories were implemented during the 1980ies and early 90ies when analogue hearing aids were commonly used. These results cannot automatically be transferred to the nowadays common digital devices. Only a small amount of studies investigated German translations of the mostly originally English inventories.

Discussion:

In order to be able to identify the actual meaning of resulting values from these inventories, it is important for ENT doctors and audiologists to be well informed of the tests’ quality criteria.

Schlüsselwörter

Fragebogen - Hörgeräte - Hörgerätekontrolle - Hörgeräteanpassung - Testgütekriterien - APHAB

Key words

Questionnaire - hearing aid - hearing aid assessment inventory - hearing aid fitting - criteria for test quality - APHAB
 

  • Literatur

  • 1 Kassenärztliche Bundesvereinigung Einführung einer Qualitätssicherungsvereinbarung Hörgeräteversorgung nach § 135 Abs. 2 SGB V/Neufassung einer Vereinbarung von Qualitätssicherungsmaßnahmen nach § 135 Abs. 2 SGB V zur Hörgeräteversorgung (Qualitätssicherungsvereinbarung Hörgeräteversorgung). Dtsch Arztebl 2012 109. (13): A-668/B-580/C-576-(Zugriff: http://www.aerzteblatt.de/archiv/124394 31.05.2012) )
    PubMed
  • 2 Kassenärztliche Bundesvereinigung Beschluss des Bewertungsausschusses nach § 87 Abs. 1 Satz 1 SGB V in seiner 262. Sitzung am 31. August 2011 zur Änderung des Einheitlichen Bewertungsmaßstabes (EBM). Dtsch Arztebl 2011 108. (39): A-2045/B-1741/C-1725: A-2045/B-1741/C-1725-(Zugriff: http://www.aerzteblatt.de/archiv/107920 31.05.2012)
    PubMed
  • 3 Löhler J. Der APHAB-Fragebogen (Deutsche Version): Qualitätssicherung bei der Hörgeräteversorgung. HNO-Mitt 2012; 62: 19-24
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Holube I Experimente und Modellvorstellungen zur Psychoakustik und zum Sprachverstehen bei Normal- und Schwerhoerigen. Dissertation, Georg August Universität, Physics, Göttingen 1993 Zugriff: http://www.Hoertechnik-Audiologie.de/refbase_web/files/diss_holube_1993Pdf 11 06 2012
    PubMed
  • 5 Petermann F, Macha T. Psychologische Tests für Kinderärzte. Hogrefe Verlag; Göttingen u.a.: 2005
    Google Scholar
  • 6 Jackson C. Testen und getestet werden. Was man über moderne Psychodiagnositk wissen sollte. Verlag Hans Huber; Bern u. a.: 1999
    Google Scholar
  • 7 Technische Universität Dresden Interne Konsistenz. 2010 http://elearning.tu-dresden.de/versuchsplanung/e35/e234/e231/ 18.10.2012
    PubMed
  • 8 Ptok M, Hecker H. Mit Fehl und Tadel – aber kalkuliert. Sprache Stimme Gehör 2004; 28: 127-129
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Hood AB, Johnson RW. Assessment in Counseling: A Guide to the use of Psychological Assessment Procedures. American Association for Counseling and Development, Alexandria, VA 1991;
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Löhler J, Frohburg R, Moser L. Die Verwendung des APHAB zur Messung der Hörgeräteversorgungsqualität in der HNO-Praxis. Laryngorhinootologie 2010; 89: 737-744
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Cox RM, Alexander GC. The Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit. Ear Hear 1995; 16: 176-186
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Cox RM, Gilmore C. Development of the Profile of Hearing Aid Performance (PHAP). J Speech Hear Res 1990; 33: 343-357
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Cox RM, Gilmore C, Alexander GC. Comparison of Two Questionnaires for Patient-Assessed Hearing Aid Benefit. J Am Acad Audiol 1991; 2: 134-145
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Cox RM, Rivera IM. Predictability and Reliability of Hearing Aid Benefit Measured using the PHAB. J Am Acad Audiol 1992; 3: 242-254
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Johnson JA, Cox RM, Alexander GC. Development of APHAB Norms for WDRC Hearing Aids and Comparisons with Original Norms. Ear Hear 2010; 31: 47-55
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Cox RM, Alexander GC, Gray GA. Audiometric Correlates of the Unaided APHAB. J Am Acad Audiol 2003; 14: 361-371
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Freyaldenhoven MC, Nabelek AK, Tampas JW. Relationship between Acceptable Noise Level and the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2008; 51: 136-146
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Hörzentrum Oldenburg . Oldenburger Inventar http://www.hoerzentrum-oldenburg.de/web/dienstleistungen/versorgung/versorgung_fragebogen.shtml 22.05.2012
    PubMed
  • 19 HörTech GmbH, AIN-Partner Subjektive Hörfähigkeit. http://hoertech.Hausdeshoerens-Oldenburg.de/ain/web/downloads/AIN_Fragebogen_V0_5_webseite.Pdf 2012: 7-7 2007
    PubMed
  • 20 Schorn K. The Tasks of the ENT Specialist by Hearing Aid Fitting. Part 2: Checking the Fit, Subjective Satisfaction, Ear Mold and Hearing Aid. HNO 2006; 54: 233-251
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Beleites E (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Hals-Nasen-Ohren-Heilkunde, Kopf- und Hals-Chirurgie), Schultz-Coulon,H.-J. (Kommission „Zukunft der Hörgeräteversorgung in Deutschland“). Stellungnahmen und Empfehlungen. Konzept für die zukünftige Hörgeräteversorgung in Deutschland (OHRwell) 2004 http://www.Hno.org/kollegen/hoergeraete.Html, 24 08 2012
    PubMed
  • 22 Humes LE, Halling D, Coughlin M. Reliability and Stability of various Hearing-Aid Outcome Measures in a Group of Elderly Hearing-Aid Waerers. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 1996; 39: 923-935
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Newman CW, Weinstein BE, Jacobson GP et al. The Hearing Handicap Inventory for Adults: Psychometric Adequacy and Audiometric Correlates. Ear Hear 1990; 11: 430-433
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Aiello CP, Lima II, Ferrari DV. Validity and Reliability of the Hearing Handicap Inventory for Adults. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol 2011; 77: 432-438
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Monzani D, Genovese E, Palma S et al. 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Tomioka K, Ikeda H, Hanaie K et al. The Hearing Handicap Inventory for Elderly-Screening (HHIE-S) versus a Single Question: Reliability, Validity, and Relations with Quality of Life Measures in the Elderly Community, Japan. Qual Life Res 2012;
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Holcomb SS, Punch JL. Multimedia Hearing Handicap Inventory: Reliability and Clinical Utility. Am J Audiol 2006; 15: 3-13
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Newman CW, Weinstein BE, Jacobson GP et al. Test-Retest Reliability of the Hearing Handicap Inventory for Adults. Ear Hear 1991; 12: 355-357
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Gates GA, Murphy M, Rees TS et al. Screening for Handicapping Hearing Loss in the Elderly. The Journal of Family Practice 2003; 52 (01) 56-62
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 HearCom. Göteborger Profil. http://hearcom.eu/prof/DiagnosingHearingLoss/AuditoryProfile/SubjectiveRatings_de.html Zugriff 28 06 2012
    PubMed
  • 31 Blum R, Margolf-Hackl S, Schubert M et al. Vergleichende klinische Studie dreier Frageninventare zur Hörgerätekontolle. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Audiologie. Fünfte Jahrestagung Zürich, 27. Februar – 02. März 2002;
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Ringdahl A, Eriksson-Mangold M, Andersson G. Psychometric Evaluation of the Gothenburg Profile for Measurement of Experienced Hearing Disability and Handicap: Applications with New Hearing Aid Candidates and Experienced Hearing Aid Users. Br J Audiol 1998; 32: 375-385
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Gatehouse S. Components and Determinants of Hearing Aid Benefit. Ear Hear 1994; 15: 30-49
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Gatehouse S. A Self-Report Outcome Measure for the Evaluation of Hearing Aid Fittings and Services. Health Bull (Edinb) 1999; 57: 424-436
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Gatehouse S. The Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit Profile: What it Measures and how to use it. The Hearing Journal 2000; 53 (03) 10-18
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Taylor B. Self-Report Assessment of Hearing Aid Outcome – an Overview. 2007 http://www.Audiologyonline com/articles/pf_article_detail Asp?article_id=1888 Zugriff: 03 09 2012
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Schum DJ. Test-Retest Reliability of a Shortened Version of the Hearing Aid Performance Inventory. J Am Acad Audiol 1993; 4: 18-21
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Walden BE, Demorest ME, Hepler EL. Self-Report Approach to Assessing Benefit Derived from Amplification. J Speech Hear Res 1984; 27: 49-56
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Jerram JC, Purdy SC. Evaluation of Hearing Aid Benefit using the Shortened Hearing Aid Performance Inventory. J Am Acad Audiol 1997; 8: 18-26
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Schum DJ. Perceived Hearing Aid Benefit in Relation to Perceived Needs. J Am Acad Audiol 1999; 10: 40-45
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Huch JL, Hosford-Dunn H. Inventories of Self Assessment Measurements of Hearing Aid Outcome. In: Robert E. Sandlin, Hrsg Textbook of Hearing Aid Amplification. Technical and Clinincal Considerations. (2nd edition) Singular Publishing Group; San Diego: 2000: S489-S556
    Google Scholar
  • 42 Valente M, Hosford-Dunn H, Roeser RR Hrsg Audiology Treatment. (2nd Edition) Thieme; NY: 2008
    Google Scholar
  • 43 Taylor ML. A Measurement of Functional Communication in Aphasia. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1965; 46: 101-107
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Dillon H, Birtles G, Lovegrove R. Measuring the Outcomes of a National Rehabilitation Program: Normative Data for the Client Oriented Scale of Improvement (COSI) and the Hearing Aid Users Questionnaire (HAUQ). Journal of the American Academy of Audiology 1999; 10 (02) 67-79
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Zelski RF Use of the Client Oriented Scale of Improvement as a Clinical Outcome Measure in the Veterans Affairs National Hearing Aid Program. Graduate School Theses and Dissertations 2000 ( http://scholarcommons.Usf.edu/etd/1550 )
    PubMed
  • 46 Dillon H, James A, Ginis J. Client Oriented Scale of Improvement (COSI) and its Relationship to several Other Measures of Benefit and Satisfaction Provided by Hearing Aids. J Am Acad Audiol 1997; 8: 27-43
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Idaho State University Self Assessment of Communication. http://www.isu.edu/csed/audiology/profile/sac.shtml 06.07.2012
    PubMed
  • 48 Hodes M, Schow RL, Brockett J. New Support for Hearing Aid Outcome Measures: The Computerized SAC and SOAC. Hearing Review 2009; 16 (12) 26-36
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Giolas TG, Owens E, Lamb SH et al. Hearing Performance Inventory. J Speech Hear Disord 1979; 44: 169-195
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Dempsey JJ. The Hearing Performance Inventory as a Tool in Fitting Hearing Aids 116-125
    PubMed
  • 51 Lamb SH, Owens E, Schubert ED. The Revised Form of the Hearing Performance Inventory. Ear Hear 1983; 4: 152-157
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Henoch MA. Evaluation of the Hearing Performance Inventory – Short Form. JARA XXXI 97-109
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Demorest ME, Walden BE. Psychometric Principles in the Selection, Interpretation, and Evaluation of Communication Self-Assessment Inventories. J Speech Hear Disord 1984; 49: 226-240
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Demorest ME, Erdman SA. Development of the Communication Profile for the Hearing Impaired. J Speech Hear Disord 1987; 52: 129-143
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Binzer S. Self-Assessment with the Communication Profile for the Hearing Impaired: Pre- and Post-Cochlear Implantation. JARA 2000; XXXIII: 91-114
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 56 Hallberg LR, Eriksson-Mangold M, Carlsson SG. Psychometric Evaluation of a Swedish Version of the Communication Strategies Scale of the Communication Profile for the Hearing Impaired. J Speech Hear Res 1992; 35: 666-674
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 57 Mokkink LB, Knol DL, Zekveld AA et al. Factor Structure and Reliability of the Dutch Version of Seven Scales of the Communication Profile for the Hearing Impaired (CPHI). J Speech Lang Hear Res 2009; 52: 454-464
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 58 Helvik AS, Thurmer H, Jacobsen GW et al. Psychometric Evaluation of a Norwegian Version of the Communication Strategies Scale of the Communication Profile for the Hearing Impaired. Disabil Rehabil 2007; 29: 513-520
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 59 Demorest ME, Erdman SA. Scale Composition and Item Analysis of the Communication Profile for the Hearing Impaired. J Speech Hear Res 1986; 29: 515-535
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 60 Garstecki DC, Erler SF. Older Adult Performance on the Communication Profile for the Hearing Impaired. J Speech Hear Res 1996; 39: 28-42
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 61 Garstecki DC, Erler SF. Older Adult Performance on the Communication Profile for the Hearing Impaired: Gender Difference. J Speech Lang Hear Res 1999; 42: 785-796
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 62 Demorest ME, Erdman SA. 1989; Relationships among Behavioral, Environmental, and Affective Communication Variables: A Canonical Analysis of the CPHI. J Speech Hear Disord 1999; 54: 180-188
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 63 Demorest ME, Erdman SA. Factor Structure of the Communication Profile for the Hearing Impaired. J Speech Hear Disord 1989; 54: 541-549
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 64 Cox RM, Alexander GC. Measuring Satisfaction with Amplification in Daily Life: The SADL Scale. Ear Hear 1999; 20: 306-320
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 65 Cox RM, Alexander GC. Expectations about Hearing Aids and their Relationship to Fitting Outcome. J Am Acad Audiol 2000; 11: 368-82 quiz 407
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 66 Meister H, Grugel L, Meis M et al. Use of Self-Assessment Inventories in Hearing-Aid Provision: German Versions of ECHO and SAD. Int J Audiol 2012; 51: 135-142
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 67 Cox RM, Alexander GC. Validation of the SADL Questionnaire. Ear Hear 2001; 22: 151-160
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 68 Mueller GH, Palmer CV. The Profile of Aided Loudness: A New “PAL” for ‘98. The Hearing Journal 1998; 51: 10-19
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 69 Palmer CV, Mueller HG, Moriarty M. Profile of Aided Loudness: A Validation Procedure. Hear J 1999; 52 (06) 34-42
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 70 Cox RM, Alexander GC. The International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids (IOI-HA): Psychometric Properties of the English Version. Int J Audiol 2002; 41: 30-35
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 71 Cox R, Hyde M, Gatehouse S et al. Optimal Outcome Measures, Research Priorities, and International Cooperation. Ear Hear 2000; 21: 106S-115S
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 72 Cox RM, Alexander GC, Beyer CM. Norms for the International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids. J Am Acad Audiol 2003; 14: 403-413
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 73 Serbetcioglu B, Mutlu B, Kirkim G et al. Results of Factorial Validity and Reliability of the International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids in Turkish. Int Adv Otol 2009; 5: 80-86
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 74 Chu H, Cho YS, Park SN et al. Standardization for a Korean Adaptation of the International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids: Study of Validity and Reliability. Korean J Otorhinolaryngol-Head Neck Surg 2012; 55: 20-25
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 75 Heuermann H, Kinkel M, Tchorz J. Comparison of Psychometric Properties of the International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids (IOI-hA) in various Studies. Int J Audiol 2005; 44: 102-109
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 76 Kramer SE, Goverts ST, Dreschler WA et al. International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids (IOI-HA): Results from the Netherlands. Int J Audiol 2002; 41: 36-41
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 77 Gasparin M, Menegotto IH, Cunha CS. Psychometric Properties of the International Outcome Inventory for Hearing AIDS. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol 2010; 76: 85-90
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 78 Hickson L, Clutterbuck S, Khan A. Factors Associated with Hearing Aid Fitting Outcomes on the IOI-H. Int J Audiol 2010; 49: 586-595
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 79 Stephens D. The International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids (IOI-HA) and its Relationship to the Client-Oriented Scale of Improvement (COSI). Int J Audiol 2002; 41: 42-47
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 80 World Health Organization World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS II). http://www.Who.int/icidh/whodas/whodasversions/36_proxy_intDC Pdf Zugriff: 01 10 2012
    PubMed
  • 81 Federici S WHODAS II: Disability Self-Evaluation in the ICF Conceptual Frame 2009 http://cirrie.Buffalo.edu/encyclopedia/en/article/299/#s2 16 10 2012
    PubMed
  • 82 Pösl M. Evaluation of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule II (WHO DAS II) – German Version. Disability in Patients with Musculoskeletal Diseases, Cardiovascular and General Internal Diseases, Stroke, Breast Cancer and Depressive Disorder. Dissertation zum Erwerb des Doktorgrades der Medizin an der Medizinischen Fakultät der Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München. 2004
    Google Scholar
  • 83 Andrews G, Kemp A, Sunderland M et al. Normative Data for the 12 Item WHO Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0. PLoS One 2009; 4: e8343
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 84 Luciano JV, Ayuso-Mateos JL, Fernandez A et al. Psychometric Properties of the Twelve Item World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule II (WHO-DAS II) in Spanish Primary Care Patients with a First Major Depressive Episode. J Affect Disord 2010; 121: 52-58
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 85 Buist-Bouwman MA, Ormel J, De Graaf R et al. Psychometric Properties of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule used in the European Study of the Epidemiology of Mental Disorders. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res 2008; 17: 185-197
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 86 Chopra PK, Couper JW, Herrman H. The Assessment of Patients with Long-Term Psychotic Disorders: Application of the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule II. Aust N Z J Psychiatry 2004; 38: 753-759
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 87 Chisolm TH, Abrams HB, McArdle R et al. The WHO-DAS II: Psychometric Properties in the Measurement of Functional Health Status in Adults with Acquired Hearing Loss. Trends Amplif. 2005. 9. 111-126
    Google Scholar
  • 88 Federici S, Meloni F, Mancini A et al. World Health Organisation Disability Assessment Schedule II: Contribution to the Italian Validation. Disabil Rehabil 2009; 31: 553-564
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 89 Meesters JJ, Verhoef J, Liem IS et al. Validity and Responsiveness of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule II to Assess Disability in Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2010; 49: 326-333
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 90 Luciano JV, Ayuso-Mateos JL, Aguado J et al. The 12-Item World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule II (WHO-DAS II): A Nonparametric Item Response Analysis. 2010; BMC Med Res Methodol 10: 45
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 91 Perini SJ, Slade T, Andrews G. Generic Effectiveness Measures: Sensitivity to Symptom Change in Anxiety Disorders. J Affect Disord 2006; 90: 123-130
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar