Development of the Social Participation Restrictions Questionnaire (SPaRQ) through consultation with adults with hearing loss, researchers, and clinicians:  a content evaluation study

Heffernan, Eithne; Coulson, Neil; Ferguson, Melanie A.

doi:10.1080/14992027.2018.1483585

Cited by 22 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…activity), is the main goal of auditory rehabilitation (Ferguson et al 2019b), we would recommend the HHIE or SPaRQ as a primary outcome measure. Furthermore, given that the SPaRQ has been validated using modern psychometric methods (Heffernan, Coulson, and Ferguson 2018;Heffernan et al 2019), and the HHIE has been shown not to be unidimensional, with a number items not fitting the 3-point response scale and having poor fit and/or differential item functioning (Heffernan, Weinstein, and Ferguson 2020), we would recommend using the SPARQ as a primary outcome measure in future RCTs.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The Social Participation Restrictions Questionnaire (SPaRQ) (Heffernan, Coulson, and Ferguson 2018;Heffernan et al 2019) is a 19 item measure that has two subscales, social behaviours (n ¼ 9) and social perceptions (n ¼ 10). It is scored on an 11point scale (0 ¼ completely disagree; 10 ¼ completely agree).…”

Section: Activity Limitations/participation Restrictionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The feasibility of an m-health educational programme (m2Hear) to improve outcomes in first-time hearing aid users

Ferguson

Maidment

Gomez

et al. 2020

International Journal of Audiology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To (i) assess the delivery, accessibility, usability, acceptability, and adherence, and (ii) identify suitable outcome measures, for a mobile-enhanced multimedia educational programme (m2Hear) in firsttime hearing aid users. Design: A prospective, single-centre feasibility study. Study sample: First-time hearing aid users (n ¼ 59), recruited at their initial hearing assessment. Evaluations were made at 1-week and at 10-12 weeks post-hearing aid fitting. Results: m2Hear was most commonly accessed via tablets (42.3%). Usability was high for the System Usability Scale (88.5%), and the uMARS, particularly for the Information (M ¼ 4.7), Functionality (M ¼ 4.5) and Aesthetics (M ¼ 4.2) subscales (maximum score ¼ 5). Participant feedback was positive, with a high percent agreeing that m2Hear aided understanding of hearing aids (98%), held their interest (86%), improved confidence to use hearing aids and communicate (84%), and provided additional information to audiologist's advice (82%). Learnings about practical hearing aid handling/maintenance skills and how to communicate with others were reportedly used equally in participant's everyday lives. m2Hear was convenient to use, clear, concise and comprehensive. Outcome measures of social participation resulted in large effect sizes (Cohen's d > 1.6). Conclusions: A theoretically-driven, personalised and co-designed educational m-health intervention is feasible and beneficial for use in the self-management of hearing loss and hearing aids.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Activity Limitations/participation Restrictionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The feasibility of an m-health educational programme (m2Hear) to improve outcomes in first-time hearing aid users

Ferguson

Maidment

Gomez

et al. 2020

International Journal of Audiology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While the ICF classification system defines the body functions and activities limitations and participation restrictions as the core elements of a disability, it also highlights that the contextual F o r P e e r R e v i e w O n l y factors (i.e., environmental and personal factors) can influence the degree to which the disability is noticed by an individual. Likewise, the ICF Core Sets for Hearing loss project highlighted a number of environmental factors (Granberg et al, 2014a(Granberg et al, , 2014b(Granberg et al, , 2014c(Granberg et al, , 2014d; ICF Research Branch, 2017) that were important for assessing hearing loss. However, these domains were not assessed by those hearing disability questionnaire instruments included in our evaluation.…”

Section: Principal Findingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Indeed, it has been suggested that content validity is the most important property of patient-reported outcome measurement instruments (Terwee et al, 2018). Given recent advances in our understanding of the biopsychosocial aspects of hearing disability (Granberg et al, 2014a(Granberg et al, , 2014b(Granberg et al, , 2014c(Granberg et al, , 2014dVas, Akeroyd, & Hall, 2017), it is uncertain to what extent current questionnaires have good content validity since this attribute of questionnaire design is not always discussed explicitly by questionnaire developers.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Content validity and readability of patient-reported questionnaire instruments of hearing disability

Manchaiah

Granberg

Grover

et al. 2019

International Journal of Audiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The current study evaluates the content validity (i.e., domains assessed) and readability levels of patient-reported questionnaire instruments using internationally recognized procedures and tools. Design: A review of the literature to identify candidate instruments and a synthesis of information including mapping extracted items onto the World Health Organization's-International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (WHO-ICF) and estimating readability. Study Sample: 14 patient-reported questionnaire instruments. Results: In general, item content focused on body function and on activity limitations and participation restrictions, with less emphasis on environmental and personal factors, and with different emphases across instruments. Many items did not clearly map onto any of the WHO-ICF categories (i.e., not coded items ranged from 3.7% to 39.1% across the 14 questionnaires). All 14 instruments exceeded the 6 th grade reading level when calculated according to the FORCAST formula which is appropriate for assessing a non-narrative text. Conclusions: Clinical assessment of hearing disability is only as comprehensive as the items covered by the chosen measurement instrument. Our findings confirmed the diversity of domains covered by hearing disability instruments, and gaps in assessment. Some concern is raised about whether the item content is appropriate for those respondents with poor literacy.

show abstract

“…9 10 Because PHL struggle to have full interactions with others, they can come to feel isolated and separated from the world. [10][11][12] The anxiousness of repeatedly not being able to hear others can lead to withdrawal from social situations. 13 Consequently, it is estimated that PHL are more likely to develop depression than the general population.…”

Section: Grounded Theory Emphasismentioning

confidence: 99%

Applications of qualitative grounded theory methodology to investigate hearing loss: protocol for a qualitative systematic review

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionHearing loss is a chronic condition affecting 12 million individuals in the UK. People with hearing loss regularly experience difficulties interacting in everyday conversations. These difficulties in communication can result in a person with hearing loss withdrawing from social situations and becoming isolated. While hearing loss research has largely deployed quantitative methods to investigate various aspects of the condition, qualitative research is becoming more widespread. Grounded theory is a specific qualitative methodology that has been used to establish novel theories on the experiences of living with hearing loss.Method and analysisThe aim of this systematic review is to establish how grounded theory has been applied to investigate the psychosocial aspects of hearing loss. Methods are reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols 2015 checklist. Studies included in this review will have applied grounded theory as an overarching methodology or have grounded theory embedded among other methodologies. Studies included will have adult participants (≥18 years) who are either people with an acquired hearing loss, their family and friends (communication partners), or healthcare practitioners including audiologists, general practitioners, ear, nose and throat specialists and hearing therapists. The quality of application of grounded theory in each study will be assessed using the Guideline for Reporting and Evaluating Grounded Theory Research Studies.Ethics and disseminationAs only secondary data will be used in this systematic review, ethical approval is not required. No other ethical issues are foreseen. This review is registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO). Findings will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publications and at relevant academic conferences. Findings may also be published in relevant professional and third sector newsletters and magazines as appropriate. Data will inform future research and guideline development.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019134197.

show abstract

Development of the Social Participation Restrictions Questionnaire (SPaRQ) through consultation with adults with hearing loss, researchers, and clinicians: a content evaluation study

Abstract: Few hearing-specific questionnaires have undergone content evaluation. This study highlights the value of content evaluation as a means of identifying important flaws and improving the quality of a measure. The next stage of this research is a psychometric evaluation of the measure.

Cited by 22 publications

References 42 publications

The feasibility of an m-health educational programme (m2Hear) to improve outcomes in first-time hearing aid users

The feasibility of an m-health educational programme (m2Hear) to improve outcomes in first-time hearing aid users

Content validity and readability of patient-reported questionnaire instruments of hearing disability

Applications of qualitative grounded theory methodology to investigate hearing loss: protocol for a qualitative systematic review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About