Psychometric Assessment of Tinnitus Patients Within Clinical Practice Settings

  • Petra Brüggemann
  • Matthias RoseEmail author


Tinnitus is a complex phenomenon with various mechanisms of origin. Multimodal and interdisciplinary treatment is the most effective form of treatment for patients with chronic tinnitus. To target treatment efforts to individual patients, a careful monitoring of the treatment success is warranted. One way to assist the healthcare providers is the use of validated psychometric instruments to assess the patient self-reported health status. However, an empirical systematic assessment of the treatment success from the patients’ perspective is still scarce in clinical practice settings. Within this chapter we discuss potential reasons for this situation, introduce some commonly used assessment instruments, and highlight potential future developments of patient-reported health assessments within clinical practice settings.



Beck Anxiety Inventory


Beck Depression Inventory


Cognitive behavior therapy


Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders


Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale


Patient-reported outcome measure


Perceived Stress Questionnaire


Perceived Stress Scale


State-Trait Anxiety Inventory


Tinnitus Questionnaire (German version-TF)


Tinnitus Reaction Questionnaire


Tinnitus retraining therapy


Visual analog scale


  1. Andersson G, Westin V (2008) Understanding tinnitus distress: introducing the concepts of moderators and mediators. Int J Audiol 47(Suppl 2):S106–S111CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Anonyms (1988). CAT project (Computerized Adaptive Testing). Issues 9(2):4–5, 7Google Scholar
  3. Antonovsky A (1993) The structure and properties of the sense of coherence scale. Soc Sci Med 36(6):725–733CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Antonovsky A (1995) The moral and the healthy: identical, overlapping or orthogonal? Isr J Psychiatry Relat Sci 32(1):5–13PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Axelsson A, Ringdahl A (1989) Tinnitus—a study of its prevalence and characteristics. Br J Audiol 23:53–62CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Bech P et al (1978) The Marke-Nyman temperament scale. Evaluation of transferability using the Rasch item analysis. Acta Psychiatr Scand 57(1):49–58CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Beebe TJ et al (2005) Mail surveys resulted in more reports of substance use than telephone surveys. J Clin Epidemiol 58(4):421–424CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Beebe TJ et al (2006) A comparison of self-reported use of behavioral health services with Medicaid agency records in Minnesota. Psychiatr Serv 57(11):1652–1654CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Bernheim JL (1986) Evaluation of the quality of life during treatment. Bull Cancer 73(5):614–619PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Bettinville A et al (2005) An enquiry into the WILDE-Intelligence-Test (WIT): comparability of application of the paper-pencil-version vs. the computer based application—an analysis based on data of the Leipzig Vocational Retraining Center. Rehabilitation (Stuttg) 44(4):237–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bezjak A et al (2001) Oncologists’ use of quality of life information: results of a survey of Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group physicians. Qual Life Res 10(1):1–13CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Bjorner JB et al (2003a) Calibration of an item pool for assessing the burden of headaches: an application of item response theory to the Headache Impact Test (HIT). Qual Life Res 12(8):913–933CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Bjorner JB et al (2003b) The feasibility of applying item response theory to measures of migraine impact: a re-analysis of three clinical studies. Qual Life Res 12(8):887–902CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Bjorner JB et al (2003c) Using item response theory to calibrate the Headache Impact Test (HIT) to the metric of traditional headache scales. Qual Life Res 12(8):981–1002CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Bliven BD et al (2001) Electronic collection of health-related quality of life data: validity, time benefits, and patient preference. Qual Life Res 10(1):15–22CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Buckelew SP et al (1994) Self-efficacy and pain behavior among subjects with fibromyalgia. Pain 59(3):377–384CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Bullinger M (1995) German translation and psychometric testing of the SF-36 Health Survey: preliminary results from the IQOLA Project. International Quality of Life Assessment. Soc Sci Med 41(10):1359–1366CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Cameron IM, Crawford JR, Lawton K, Reid IC (2008) Psychometric comparison of PHQ-9 and HADS for measuring depression severity in primary care. Br J Gen Pract 58:32–36CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. Cella D, Chang CH (2000) A discussion of item response theory and its applications in health status assessment. Med Care 38(9 Suppl):II66–II72PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Cook AJ et al (2004) Electronic pain questionnaires: a randomized, crossover comparison with paper questionnaires for chronic pain assessment. Pain 110(1–2):310–317CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. de Vries H et al (2005) Equivalence of mail and telephone responses to the CAHPS Hospital Survey. Health Serv Res 40(6 Pt 2):2120–2139CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. DeAngelis S (2000) Equivalency of computer-based and paper-and-pencil testing. J Allied Health 29(3):161–164PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Detmar SB, Muller MJ, Schornagel JH, Wever LD, Aaronson NK (2002) Health-related quality-of-life assessments and patient-physician communication: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 288:3027–3034CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Donaldson MS (2004) Taking stock of health-related quality-of-life measurement in oncology practice in the United States. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 33:155–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Duncan P et al (2005) Measuring stroke impact with the stroke impact scale: telephone versus mail administration in veterans with stroke. Med Care 43(5):507–515CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Embretson SE (2000) Multidimensional measurement from dynamic tests: abstract reasoning under stress. Multivar Behav Res 35(4):505–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Embretson SE (2006) The continued search for nonarbitrary metrics in psychology. Am Psychol 61(1):50–55; discussion 62–71CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Espallargues M, Alonso J (1998) Effectiveness of cataract surgery in Barcelona, Spain site results of an international study. Barcelona I-PORT investigators. International Patient Outcomes Research Team. J Clin Epidemiol 51(10):843–852CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Fischl C, Fisher AG (2007) Development and Rasch analysis of the assessment of computer-related skills. Scand J Occup Ther 14(2):126–135CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Fisher AG (1993) The assessment of IADL motor skills: an application of many-faceted Rasch analysis. Am J Occup Ther 47(4):319–329CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Fliege H et al (2005) The Perceived Stress Questionnaire (PSQ) reconsidered: validation and reference values from different clinical and healthy adult samples. Psychosom Med 67(1):78–88CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Folk LC et al (2006) A comparison of linear, fixed-form computer-based testing versus traditional paper-and-pencil-format testing in veterinary medical education. J Vet Med Educ 33(3):455–464CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Fuhr K et al (2016) Validation of the Behavioral Activation for Depression Scale (BADS)-Psychometric properties of the long and short form. Compr Psychiatry 66:209–218CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Goebel G, Hiller W (1994) The tinnitus questionnaire. A standard instrument for grading the degree of tinnitus. Results of a multicenter study with the tinnitus questionnaire. HNO 42(3):166–172PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Greenhalgh J, Meadows K (1999) The effectiveness of the use of patient-based measures of health in routine practice in improving the process and outcomes of patient care: a literature review. J Eval Clin Pract 5(4):401–416CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Haley SM et al (2004) Score comparability of short forms and computerized adaptive testing: simulation study with the activity measure for post-acute care. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 85(4):661–666CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Hambleton RK (2006) Good practices for identifying differential item functioning. Med Care 44(11 Suppl 3):S182–S188CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Hannover W et al (2004) Antonovsky’s sense of coherence scale and presentation of a psychiatric diagnosis. Psychother Psychosom Med Psychol 54(3–4):179–186PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Hautzinger M, Bailer M (1993) Allgemeine Depressionsskala. Hogrefe, GöttingenGoogle Scholar
  40. Hays RD et al (2000) Item response theory and health outcomes measurement in the 21st century. Med Care 38(9 Suppl):II28–II42PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. Henry JA, Dennis KC, Schechter MA (2005) General review of tinnitus: prevalence, mechanisms, effects, and management. J Speech Lang Hear Res 48:1204–1235CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Hepner KA et al (2005) Comparison of mail and telephone in assessing patient experiences in receiving care from medical group practices. Eval Health Prof 28(4):377–389CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Hesse G (2008) Neurootologic and psychosomatic habituation therapy. Treatment approaches in chronic tinnitus. HNO 56(7):686–693CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Heuser J, Geissner E (1998) Computerized version of the pain experience scale: a study of equivalence. Schmerz 12(3):205–208CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Hiller W, Goebel G (1999) Assessing audiological, pathophysiological, and psychological variables in chronic tinnitus: a study of reliability and search for prognostic factors. Int J Behav Med 6(4):312–330CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Kahneman D, Krueger AB, Schkade DA, Schwarz N, Stone AA (2004) A survey method for characterizing daily life experience: the day reconstruction method. Science 306:1776–1780CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Kamalski DM et al (2010) Measuring disease-specific health-related quality of life to evaluate treatment outcomes in tinnitus patients: a systematic review. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 143(2):181–185CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Kendrick T, Dowrick C, McBride A et al (2009) Management of depression in UK general practice in relation to scores on depression severity questionnaires: analysis of medical record data. BMJ 338:b750CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Kleinman L et al (2001) A comparative trial of paper-and-pencil versus computer administration of the Quality of Life in Reflux and Dyspepsia (QOLRAD) questionnaire. Med Care 39(2):181–189CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Kraus L, Augustin R (2001) Measuring alcohol consumption and alcohol-related problems: comparison of responses from self-administered questionnaires and telephone interviews. Addiction 96(3):459–471CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Kroenke K (2001) Depression screening is not enough. Ann Intern Med 134(5):418–420CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Kroenke K et al (2003) The Patient Health Questionnaire-2: validity of a two-item depression screener. Med Care 41(11):1284–1292CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Langguth B, Kleinjung T, Fischer B et al (2007) Tinnitus severity, depression, and the big five personality traits. Prog Brain Res 166:221–225CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Ledure G, Souris M, Bernheim JL (1981) Control study of anamnestic comparative self assessment (ACSA). In: Proceedings of the 3rd EORTS QOL study group workshop. Amsterdam, S69–S91Google Scholar
  55. Litt MD et al (1993) Coping with oral surgery by self-efficacy enhancement and perceptions of control. J Dent Res 72(8):1237–1243CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Lord FM (1965) A strong true-score theory, with applications. Psychometrika 30(3):239–270CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Martin M et al (2007) Item response theory methods can improve the measurement of physical function by combining the modified health assessment questionnaire and the SF-36 physical function scale. Qual Life Res 16(4):647–660CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Mazurek B, Fischer F, Haupt H et al (2006) A modified version of tinnitus retraining therapy: observing long-term outcome and predictors. Audiol Neurootol 11:276–286CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. McDowell I et al (2004) On the classification of population health measurements. Am J Public Health 94(3):388–393CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  60. Mitchell AJ, Coyne JC (2007) Do ultra-short screening instruments accurately detect depression in primary care? A pooled analysis and meta-analysis of 22 studies. Br J Gen Pract 57:144–151PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  61. Muluk NB (2009) The SF-36 Health Survey in tinnitus patients with a high jugular bulb. J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 38(2):166–171PubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. National Collaborating Centre for Mental Health (2010a) Depression in adults with a chronic physical health problem: treatment and management. The British Psychological Society, LeicesterGoogle Scholar
  63. National Collaborating Centre for Mental Health (2010b) Depression: the treatment and management of depression in adults, Updated edn. The British Psychological Society, LeicesterGoogle Scholar
  64. Norman GJ et al (2010) Reliability and validity of brief psychosocial measures related to dietary behaviors. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 7:56CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  65. Powers JR et al (2005) Differences in mail and telephone responses to self-rated health: use of multiple imputation in correcting for response bias. Aust N Z J Public Health 29(2):149–154CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Rasch G (1966) An item analysis which takes individual differences into account. Br J Math Stat Psychol 19(1):49–57CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. Revicki DA, Cella DF (1997) Health status assessment for the twenty-first century: item response theory, item banking and computer adaptive testing. Qual Life Res 6(6):595–600CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Rodriguez HP et al (2006) Evaluating patients’ experiences with individual physicians: a randomized trial of mail, internet, and interactive voice response telephone administration of surveys. Med Care 44(2):167–174CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. Rubenstein LV et al (1995) Improving patient quality of life with feedback to physicians about functional status. J Gen Intern Med 10(11):607–614CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. Ryan JM et al (2002) A comparison of an electronic version of the SF-36 General Health Questionnaire to the standard paper version. Qual Life Res 11(1):19–26CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. Saleh KJ et al (2002) Comparison of commonly used orthopaedic outcome measures using palm-top computers and paper surveys. J Orthop Res 20(6):1146–1151CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. Schaaf H, Gieler U (2010) TRT and psychotherapy in the treatment of tinnitus. HNO 58(10):999–1003CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. Schaeren S et al (2005) A computer touch-screen version of the North American Spine Society outcome assessment instrument for the lumbar spine. J Bone Joint Surg Br 87(2):201–204CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. Schneider G et al (2004) What influences self-perception of health in the elderly? The role of objective health condition, subjective well-being and sense of coherence. Arch Gerontol Geriatr 39(3):227–237CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. Scholler G et al (1999) Questionnaire of self-efficacy, optimism and pessimism: reconstruction, selection of items and validation of an instrument by means of examinations of clinical samples. Psychother Psychosom Med Psychol 49(8):275–283PubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. Schumacher J et al (2000) The Antonovsky Sense of Coherence Scale. Test statistical evaluation of a representative population sample and construction of a brief scale. Psychother Psychosom Med Psychol 50(12):472–482CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. Seydel C, Haupt H, Szczepek AJ et al (2010) Long-term improvement in tinnitus after modified tinnitus retraining therapy enhanced by a variety of psychological approaches. Audiol Neurootol 15:69–80CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. Sirois FM et al (2006) “Learning to live with what you can’t rise above”: control beliefs, symptom control, and adjustment to tinnitus. Health Psychol 25(1):119–123CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. Soderman AC et al (2001) Patients’ subjective evaluations of quality of life related to disease-specific symptoms, sense of coherence, and treatment in Meniere’s disease. Otol Neurotol 22(4):526–533CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. Soderman AC et al (2002) Factors influencing quality of life in patients with Meniere’s disease, identified by a multidimensional approach. Otol Neurotol 23(6):941–948CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. Stobik C, Weber RK, Munte TF et al (2005) Evidence of psychosomatic influences in compensated and decompensated tinnitus. Int J Audiol 44:370–378CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. Thombs BD, de Jonge P, Coyne JC et al (2008) Depression screening and patient outcomes in cardiovascular care: a systematic review. JAMA 300:2161–2171CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. Titov N et al (2011) Psychometric comparison of the PHQ-9 and BDI-II for measuring response during treatment of depression. Cogn Behav Ther 40(2):126–136CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. Velikova G et al (1999) Automated collection of quality-of-life data: a comparison of paper and computer touch-screen questionnaires. J Clin Oncol 17(3):998–1007CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. Velikova G et al (2004) Measuring quality of life in routine oncology practice improves communication and patient well-being: a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol 22(4):714–724CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. Wahl I et al (2014) Standardization of depression measurement: a common metric was developed for 11 self-report depression measures. J Clin Epidemiol 67(1):73–86CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  87. Ware JE (1993) Measuring patients’ views: the optimum outcome measure. BMJ 306(6890):1429–1430CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  88. Ware JE Jr (2008) Improvements in short-form measures of health status: introduction to a series. J Clin Epidemiol 61(1):1–5CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. Ware JE Jr et al (2000) Practical implications of item response theory and computerized adaptive testing: a brief summary of ongoing studies of widely used headache impact scales. Med Care 38(9 Suppl):II73–II82PubMedGoogle Scholar
  90. Ware JE Jr et al (2003) Applications of computerized adaptive testing (CAT) to the assessment of headache impact. Qual Life Res 12(8):935–952CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  91. Webb PM et al (1999) Comparability of a computer-assisted versus written method for collecting health behavior information from adolescent patients. J Adolesc Health 24(6):383–388CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  92. Weber JH, Jagsch R, Hallas B (2008) The relationship between tinnitus, personality, and depression. Z Psychosom Med Psychother 54:227–240PubMedGoogle Scholar
  93. Whooley MA, Avins AL, Miranda J, Browner WS (1997) Case-finding instruments for depression. Two questions are as good as many. J Gen Intern Med 12:439–445CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  94. Wilson IB, Cleary PD (1995) Linking clinical variables with health-related quality of life. A conceptual model of patient outcomes. JAMA 273(1):59–65CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  95. Wilson AS et al (2002) Computerized information-gathering in specialist rheumatology clinics: an initial evaluation of an electronic version of the Short Form 36. Rheumatology (Oxford) 41(3):268–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Wittchen HU (1994) Reliability and validity studies of the WHO—Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI): a critical review. J Psychiatr Res 28(1):57–84CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  97. Zirke N et al (2013) Analysis of mental disorders in tinnitus patients performed with Composite International Diagnostic Interview. Qual Life Res 22(8):2095–2104CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Tinnitus Center, Charité University HospitalBerlinGermany
  2. 2.Department of Psychosomatic MedicineCharité University HospitalBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations