Translation and Determination of Reliability and Validity of the Glasgow Hearing-Aid Benefit Profile (GHABP) Questionnaire

Document Type : Original article

Authors

1 Student Research Committee, MSc Student of Audiology, , School of Rehabilitation, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

2 PhD in Audiology, Assistant Professor, Department of Audiology, School of Rehabilitation, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

3 MSc in Biostatistics, Basic Sciences Department, School of Rehabilitation, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Science, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Background and Aim: Using hearing aid is the main intervention in audiologic rehabilitation of hearing impaired elderly people. A suitable tool for evaluating auditory rehabilitation and hearing aid is using questionnaires. As a case in point, translation and psychometric evaluation of GHABP could provide a suitable and useful tool for Iranian Audiology Community.
Materials and Methods: First the questionnaire was translated by two different translators and then the items were finalized. Next, face validity and content validity evaluations were condcted. To check th reliability, a total of 40 elderly filled out the questionnaire and 20 elderly people who had used the hearing aid for six months answered the questionnaire once again after 25 days for test-retest confirmation.
Results: After considering validity and content of Glasgow questionnaire, we found that this questionnaire enjoyed 89% validity index and also 0.89 cronbach's alpha coefficient demonstrating that using this questionnaire is benefitial to be used among the elderly.
 
Conclusion: GHABA is a valid, reliable tool for measuring the benefits of using hearing aid in hearing impaired elderly.
 

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. Dalton, D. S., Cruickshanks, K. J., Klein, B. E., Klein, R., Wiley, T. L., Nondahl, D. M. 2003. The impact of hearing loss on quality of life in older adults. Gerontologist. 43(5):661-668.##
  2. Sindhusake, D., Mitchell, P., Smith, W., Golding, M., Newall, P., Hartley, D. 2001. Validation of self- reported hearing loss. The blue mountains hearing study. International Journal of Epidemiology. 30(6):1371-1378. ##
  3. Kochkin, S and Marke, T. 2005. Customer satisfaction with hearing instruments in the digital age. Hearing Journal. 58(9):30,32-34,38- 40,42-43. ##
  4. Sprinzl, G. M and Riechelmann, H. 2010. Current trends in treating hearing loss in elderly people: a review of the technology and treatment options - a mini-review. Gerontology. 56(3):351-358. ##
  5. Gus Mueller,Page ten, the hearing journal, March 2000.Vol.53.No.3##
  6. Lee, T.W., Ko, I. S., Lee, K. J. 2006. Health promotion behaviors and quality of life among community-dwelling elderly in Korea: a cross-sectional survey. International Journal of Nursing Studies. 43(3): 293-300. ##
  7. Gatehouse, S. 1999. Glasgow Hearing Aid Benefit Profile : Derivation and Validation of a Client-centered Outcome Measure for Hearing Aid Services. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology. 10: 80-103. ##
  8. Newman, W and Sandridge, S. A. 2004. Hearing loss is often undiscovered, but screening is easy. Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine. 71(3): 225-327. ##
  9. Appollonio, I., Carabellese, C., Frattola, L and Trabucchi, M. 1996. Effects of sensory aids on the quality of life and mortality of elderly people: a multivariate analysis. Age Ageing. 25(2): 89-96. ##
  10. Mazaher Yazdi, M., Lotfi, Y., Malayeri, S and Jafari, Z. 2002. Auditory perception test for mild to profound hearing-impaired individuals (5-20 years) in baghche-ban deaf school in karaj (2002). RJMS. 10(38):943-949. [In Persian]. ##
  11. Souza, V. C and Lemos, S. M. A. 2015. Tools for evaluation of restriction on auditory participation: systematic review of the literature. Systematic Review. 27(4):400-406. ##
  12. Jespersen, C. T., Bille, M and Legarth, J. V. 2014. Psychometric properties of a revised Danish translation of the international outcome inventory for hearing aids (IOI-HA). International Journal of Audiology. 53: 302–308. ##
  13. Da Costa Otavio, A. C., Coradini, P. P and Teixeira, A. R. 2016. Self-Assessment of Hearing and Purchase of Hearing Aids by Middle-Aged and Elderly Adults. International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology. 20:48–53. ##
  14. Cox, R. M., Gilmore, C and Alexander, G. C. 1991. Comparison of Two Questionnaires for Patient-Assessed Hearing Aid Benefit. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology. 134-145. ##
  15. Dillon, H., Jamest, A and Ginis, J. 1997. Client Oriented Scale of Improvement (COSI) and Its Relationship to Several Other Measures of Benefit and Satisfaction Provided by Hearing Aids. Journal of the American Academy of Audiology. 8: 27-43. ##
  16. William M. Whitmer, Patrick Howell, and Michael A. Akeroyd . (2014). Proposed norms for the Glasgow hearing aid benefit profile (GHABP) questionnaire. Int J Audiol. 2014 May ; 53(5): 345–351##
The Scientific Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine
Volume 7, Issue 4
January and February 2019
Pages 185-190

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 27 May 2018
  • Revise Date: 03 July 2018
  • Accept Date: 17 July 2018
  • First Publish Date: 22 December 2018

Share

How to cite

Statistics