Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
Published in: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 1/2013

Open Access 01-12-2013 | Research

The Otitis Media-6 questionnaire: psychometric properties with emphasis on factor structure and interpretability

Authors: Christian Hamilton Heidemann, Christian Godballe, Anette Drøhse Kjeldsen, Eva Charlotte Jung Johansen, Christian Emil Faber, Henrik Hein Lauridsen

Published in: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes | Issue 1/2013

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The Otitis Media-6 questionnaire (OM-6) is the most frequently used instrument to measure health related quality of life in children with otitis media. The main objectives of this study are 1) to translate and cross-culturally adapt the OM-6 into Danish, and 2) to assess important psychometric properties including structural validity and interpretability of the OM-6 in a Danish population of children suffering from otitis media.

Methods

The OM-6 was translated and cross-culturally adapted according to international guidelines. A longitudinal validation study enrolled 491 children and their families, and the measurement properties of the OM-6 were evaluated using the Cosmin taxonomy. The properties assessed were construct and structural validity (confirmatory factor analysis) including internal consistency, reproducibility (test-retest reliability and smallest detectable change), responsiveness and interpretability.

Results

A total of 435 children were eligible to participate in the study. Analyses of structural validity and internal consistency indicated that parent appraisal of hearing and speech problems may be problematic. Both scales showed similarly good test-retest reliability and construct validity, were able to discriminate between diagnostic subgroups and responsive to change. Cut-off values of 16.7 and 30.0 were found to represent minimal important change for the patients.

Conclusions

The Danish version of the OM-6 is a reliable, valid, responsive and interpretable questionnaire to measure quality of life in children with otitis media. This study sheds light on possible weaknesses of the instrument that needs to be acknowledged in the utilization of the instrument. However, despite these issues our results support the continuing use of OM-6 as a 1-factor functional health scale with a separate global health rating. Furthermore, indications of values representing minimal important change as perceived by the respondent are presented.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
2.
Otitis media with effusion Pediatrics 2004, 113: 1412–1429.
3.
Diagnosis and management of acute otitis media Pediatrics 2004, 113: 1451–1465.
4.
Browning GG, Rovers MM, Williamson I, Lous J, Burton MJ: Grommets (ventilation tubes) for hearing loss associated with otitis media with effusion in children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010. CD001801
5.
Rosenfeld RM, Goldsmith AJ, Tetlus L, Balzano A: Quality of life for children with otitis media. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1997, 123: 1049–1054.PubMedCrossRef
6.
Brouwer CN, Maille AR, Rovers MM, Grobbee DE, Sanders EA, Schilder AG: Health-related quality of life in children with otitis media. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol 2005, 69: 1031–1041.PubMedCrossRef
7.
Timmerman AA, Meesters CM, Speyer R, Anteunis LJ: Psychometric qualities of questionnaires for the assessment of otitis media impact. Clin Otolaryngol 2007, 32: 429–439.PubMedCrossRef
8.
Kubba H, Swan IR, Gatehouse S: How appropriate is the OM6 as a discriminative instrument in children with otitis media? Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2004, 130: 705–709.PubMedCrossRef
9.
Timmerman AA, Anteunis LJ, Meesters CM: Response-shift bias and parent-reported quality of life in children with otitis media. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2003, 129: 987–991.PubMedCrossRef
10.
Witsell DL, Stewart MG, Monsell EM, Hadley JA, Terrell JE, Yueh B, et al.: The Cooperative Outcomes Group for ENT: a multicenter prospective cohort study on the outcomes of tympanostomy tubes for children with otitis media. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2005, 132: 180–188.PubMedCrossRef
11.
Brouwer CN, Schilder AG, van Stel HF, Rovers MM, Veenhoven RH, Grobbee DE, et al.: Reliability and validity of functional health status and health-related quality of life questionnaires in children with recurrent acute otitis media. Qual Life Res 2007, 16: 1357–1373.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
12.
Boruk M, Lee P, Faynzilbert Y, Rosenfeld RM: Caregiver well-being and child quality of life. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2007, 136: 159–168.PubMedCrossRef
13.
Kent P, Lauridsen HH: Managing missing scores on the Roland Morris disability questionnaire. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2011, 36: 1878–1884.CrossRef
14.
Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB: Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2000, 25: 3186–3191.CrossRef
15.
Raat H, Bonsel GJ, Essink-Bot ML, Landgraf JM, Gemke RJ: Reliability and validity of comprehensive health status measures in children: the child health questionnaire in relation to the health utilities index. J Clin Epidemiol 2002, 55: 67–76.PubMedCrossRef
16.
Nielsen S, Ruperto N, Herlin T, Pedersen FK: The Danish version of the Childhood Health Assessment Questionnaire (CHAQ) and the Child Health Questionnaire (CHQ). Clin Exp Rheumatol 2001, 19: S50-S54.PubMed
17.
Joos R, Ruperto N, Wouters C, Boven K, Raat H, Landgraf JM, et al.: The Belgian-Flemish version of the Childhood Health Assessment Questionnaire (CHAQ) and the Child Health Questionnaire (CHQ). Clin Exp Rheumatol 2001, 19: S20-S24.PubMed
18.
Morales NM, Silva CH, Frontarolli AC, Araujo RR, Rangel VO, Pinto RM, et al.: Psychometric properties of the initial Brazilian version of the CHQ-PF50 applied to the caregivers of children and adolescents with cerebral palsy. Qual Life Res 2007, 16: 437–444.PubMedCrossRef
19.
Ng JY, Landgraf JM, Chiu CS, Cheng NL, Cheung YF: Preliminary evidence on the measurement properties of the Chinese version of the Child Health Questionnaire, parent form (CHQ-pF50) and child form (CHQ-CF87). Qual Life Res 2005, 14: 1775–1781.PubMedCrossRef
20.
Rentz AM, Matza LS, Secnik K, Swensen A, Revicki DA: Psychometric validation of the child health questionnaire (CHQ) in a sample of children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Qual Life Res 2005, 14: 719–734.PubMedCrossRef
21.
Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, et al.: The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 2010, 63: 737–745.PubMedCrossRef
22.
de Vet HC, Terwee CB, Knol DL, Bouter LM: When to use agreement versus reliability measures. J Clin Epidemiol 2006, 59: 1033–1039.PubMedCrossRef
23.
de Vet HC, Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, Knol DL: Measurement in Medicine. 1st edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2011.CrossRef
24.
Goffin RD: Assessing the adequacy of structural equation models: golden rules and editorial policies. Personal Individ Differ 2007, 42: 831–839.CrossRef
25.
Byrne BM: Structural Equation modeling with Mplus: Basic Concepts, Applications and Programming. 1st edition. New York: Routledge Academic; 2011.
26.
Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, van der Windt DA, Knol DL, Dekker J, et al.: Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol 2007, 60: 34–42.PubMedCrossRef
27.
Cohen J: Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd edition. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.; 1988.
28.
Shrout PE, Fleiss JL: Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull 1979, 86: 420–428.PubMedCrossRef
29.
Fayers PM, Machin D: Quality of Life: the assessment, analysis and interpretation of patient-reported outcomes. 2nd edition. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Inc.; 2007.CrossRef
30.
Streiner DL, Norman GR: Health Measurement Scales: a practical guide to their development and use, 4. 4th edition. New York: Oxford University Press; 2008.CrossRef
31.
Marchenko Y: Estimating variance components in Stata. Stata J 2006, 6: 1–21.
32.
Crosby RD, Kolotkin RL, Williams GR: Defining clinically meaningful change in health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol 2003, 56: 395–407.PubMedCrossRef
33.
McHorney CA, Tarlov AR: Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status surveys adequate? Qual Life Res 1995, 4: 293–307.PubMedCrossRef
34.
de Vet HC, Ostelo RW, Terwee CB, van der Roer N, Knol DL, Beckerman H, et al.: Minimally important change determined by a visual method integrating an anchor-based and a distribution-based approach. Qual Life Res 2007, 16: 131–142.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
35.
de Boer MR, de Vet HC, Terwee CB, Moll AC, Volker-Dieben HJ, van Rens GH: Changes to the subscales of two vision-related quality of life questionnaires are proposed. J Clin Epidemiol 2005, 58: 1260–1268.PubMedCrossRef
36.
Rosenfeld RM, Goldsmith AJ, Madell JR: How accurate is parent rating of hearing for children with otitis media? Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1998, 124: 989–992.PubMedCrossRef
37.
Liang MH, Fossel AH, Larson MG: Comparisons of five health status instruments for orthopedic evaluation. Med Care 1990, 28: 632–642.PubMedCrossRef
38.
Juniper EF, Guyatt GH, Willan A, Griffith LE: Determining a minimal important change in a disease-specific quality of life questionnaire. J Clin Epidemiol 1994, 47: 81–87.PubMedCrossRef
39.
Kamper SJ, Ostelo RW, Knol DL, Maher CG, de Vet HC, Hancock MJ: Global perceived effect scales provided reliable assessments of health transition in people with musculoskeletal disorders, but ratings are strongly influenced by current status. J Clin Epidemiol 2010, 63: 760–766.PubMedCrossRef
40.
Guyatt GH, Norman GR, Juniper EF, Griffith LE: A critical look at transition ratings. J Clin Epidemiol 2002, 55: 900–908.PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
The Otitis Media-6 questionnaire: psychometric properties with emphasis on factor structure and interpretability
Authors
Christian Hamilton Heidemann
Christian Godballe
Anette Drøhse Kjeldsen
Eva Charlotte Jung Johansen
Christian Emil Faber
Henrik Hein Lauridsen
Publication date
01-12-2013
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes / Issue 1/2013
Electronic ISSN: 1477-7525
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-11-201

Other articles of this Issue 1/2013

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 1/2013 Go to the issue

Research

Responsiveness of the MOS-HIV and EQ-5D in HIV-infected adults receiving antiretroviral therapies

Research

A study of two generic health-related quality of life questionnaires—Nottingham Health Profile and Short-Form 36 Health Survey—and of coping in patients with sensory hyperreactivity

Research

Anticipated adaptation or scale recalibration?

Research

‘It is not going to change his life but it has picked him up’: a qualitative study of perspectives on long term oxygen therapy for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Research

The Caregiver Burden Questionnaire for Heart Failure (CBQ-HF): face and content validity

Study protocol

Home administration of maintenance pemetrexed for patients with advanced non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer: rationale, practicalities and phase II feasibility study design