Turkish Reliability and Validity Study of the Brief Version of the Vanderbilt Fatigue Scale for Adults

Abstract

Objectives: Listening-related fatigue (LRF) is one of the important topics recently researched in the field of audiology. The purpose of this study is to establish the Turkish validity and reliability of the Brief Version of Vanderbilt Fatigue Scale for Adults, which was developed specifically to evaluate LRF. Materials and Methods: A total of 286 people between the ages of 18 and 70 were included in this study, including 126 adults with normal hearing in the control group and 160 adults with hearing loss in the study group. 90 people in the study group are hearing aid users, and 60 people are cochlear implant users. A substudy group of 70 adults with hearing loss completed the Turkish version The Brief version of Vanderbilt Adult Fatigue Scale for Adults (VYÖ-10) again two weeks later for test-retest reliability measurements. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to evaluate test-retest reliability. Cronbach's alpha was used to assess internal consistency. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted to examine construct validity. In the concurrent validity analysis, the relationship between Turkish version of Checklist Individual Strength (CIS) and VYÖ-10 scores was examined using the Spearman correlation test. Results: Internal consistency Cronbach's alpha value for VYÖ-10 was found to be .973 (excellent). The ICC value was obtained as. 92, indicating high test-retest reliability. Concurrent validity analysis showed that there were very strong and significant correlations between CIS and VYÖ-10 scores. This result indicates high concurrent validity. EFA showed that the construct validity of VYÖ-10 was satisfactory. Conclusion: The VYÖ-10 has been put into scientific use as the first valid and reliable Turkish scale to evaluate LRF experiences in adults with hearing loss.

Keywords

• listening-related fatigue
• psychometrics
• hearing loss

Vanderbilt Yetişkinler için Yorgunluk Ölçeği’nin Kısa Versiyonu’nun Türkçe Güvenirlik ve Geçerlik Çalışması

Abstract

Amaç: Dinlemeye bağlı yorgunluk (DBY), odyoloji alanında son zamanlarda araştırılan önemli konulardan biridir. Bu çalışmanın amacı, spesifik olarak DBY’yi değerlendirmek için geliştirilen Vanderbilt Yetişkinler İçin Yorgunluk Ölçeği Kısa Versiyonu’nun Türkçe güvenirlik ve geçerliğini gerçekleştirmektir. Gereç ve Yöntem: Bu çalışmaya kontrol grubunda 126 normal işiten ve çalışma grubunda 160 işitme kayıplı yetişkin olmak üzere 18-70 yaş arası toplam 286 kişi dahil edilmiştir. Çalışma grubundaki 90 kişi işitme cihazı (İC) kullanıcısı, 60 kişi ise koklear implant (Kİ) kullanıcısıdır. 70 işitme kayıplı yetişkinden oluşan alt çalışma grubu, test-tekrar test güvenirlik ölçümleri için Vanderbilt Yetişkinler İçin Yorgunluk Ölçeği Kısa Formu Türkçe versiyonu (VYÖ-10) ’nu iki hafta sonra yeniden doldurmuştur. Test-tekrar test güvenirliğini değerlendirmek için sınıf içi korelasyon katsayısı (ICC) kullanılmıştır. İç tutarlılığı değerlendirmek için Cronbach'ın alfa değeri kullanılmıştır. Yapı geçerliğini incelemek için açımlayıcı faktör analizi (AFA) yapılmıştır. Eş zamanlı geçerlik analizi ise Checklist Individual Strength (CIS) Türkçe versiyonu ve VYÖ-10 puanlarının ilişkisi Spearman korelasyon testi kullanılarak incelenmiştir. Bulgular: VYÖ-10 için iç tutarlılık Cronbach alfa değeri .973 (mükemmel) bulunmuştur. Yüksek test-tekrar test güvenirliğinin göstergesi olarak ICC değeri .92 olarak elde edilmiştir. Eş zamanlı geçerlik analizi, CIS ile VYÖ-10 puanları arasında çok güçlü ve anlamlı korelasyonlar olduğunu göstermiştir. Bu sonuç yüksek bir eş zamanlı geçerliğe işaret etmektedir. AFA, VYÖ-10’ un yapı geçerliğinin tatmin edici olduğunu göstermiştir. Sonuç: VYÖ-10, işitme kayıplı yetişkinlerde DBY deneyimlerini değerlendiren geçerli ve güvenilir ilk Türkçe ölçek olarak bilimsel kullanıma sunulmuştur.

Keywords

• dinlemeye bağlı yorgunluk
• psikometrik
• işitme kaybı

References

1. Alhanbali, S., Dawes, P., Lloyd, S., & Munro, K. J. (2017). Self-reported listening-related effort and fatigue in hearing-impaired adults. Ear and hearing, 38(1), e39-e48. https://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0000000000000361
2. Beaton, D., Bombardier, C., Guillemin, F., & Ferraz, M. B. (2007). Recommendations for the cross-cultural adaptation of the DASH & QuickDASH outcome measures (Publication Number 1)
3. Bess, F. H., & Hornsby, B. W. (2014). Commentary: Listening can be exhausting—Fatigue in children and adults with hearing loss. Ear and hearing, 35(6), 592-599. https://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0000000000000099
4. Billones, R., Liwang, J. K., Butler, K., Graves, L., & Saligan, L. N. (2021). Dissecting the fatigue experience: a scoping review of fatigue definitions, dimensions, and measures in non-oncologic medical conditions. Brain, behavior, & immunity-health, 15, 100266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbih.2021.100266
5. Chiu, H.-Y., Li, W., Lin, J.-H., Su, Y.-K., Lin, E.-Y., & Tsai, P.-S. (2018). Measurement properties of the Chinese version of the Mental Fatigue Scale for patients with traumatic brain injury. Brain injury, 32(5), 652-664. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699052.2018.1432893
6. Chuang, L. L., Chuang, Y. F., Hsu, M. J., Huang, Y. Z., Wong, A. M., & Chang, Y. J. (2018). Validity and reliability of the Traditional Chinese version of the Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory in general population. PLoS One, 13(5), e0189850. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189850
7. Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical assessment, research, and evaluation, 10(1), 7. https://doi.org/10.7275/jyj1-4868
8. Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological bulletin, 52(4), 281. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040957

9. Davis, H., Schlundt, D., Bonnet, K., Camarata, S., Bess, F. H., & Hornsby, B. (2021). Understanding listening-related fatigue: Perspectives of adults with hearing loss. International Journal of Audiology, 60(6), 458-468. https://doi.org/10.1080/14992027.2020.1834631
10. Dwyer, R. T., Gifford, R. H., Bess, F. H., Dorman, M., Spahr, A., & Hornsby, B. W. (2019). Diurnal cortisol levels and subjective ratings of effort and fatigue in adult cochlear implant users: A pilot study. American Journal of Audiology, 28(3), 686-696. https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_AJA-19-0009
11. Field, A. (2009). 20093: Discovering statistics using SPSS.
12. Gallais, B., Gagnon, C., Forgues, G., Côté, I., & Laberge, L. (2017). Further evidence for the reliability and validity of the Fatigue and Daytime Sleepiness Scale. Journal of the neurological sciences, 375, 23-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jns.2017.01.032
13. George, D., & Mallery, M. (2003). Using SPSS for Windows step by step: a simple guide and reference.
14. Gharaibeh, B., Al-Smadi, A. M., & Boyle, D. (2017). Psychometric properties and characteristics of the Diabetes Self Management Scale. International journal of nursing sciences, 4(3), 252-259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnss.2017.04.001
15. Gliem, J. A., & Gliem, R. R. (2003). Calculating, interpreting, and reporting Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient for Likert-type scales.
16. Hall, D. A., Zaragoza Domingo, S., Hamdache, L. Z., Manchaiah, V., Thammaiah, S., Evans, C., Wong, L. L., Audiology, I. C. o. R., & NETwork, T. R. (2018). A good practice guide for translating and adapting hearing-related questionnaires for different languages and cultures. International Journal of Audiology, 57(3), 161-175. https://doi.org/10.1080/14992027.2017.1393565
17. Hatcher, L., & O'Rourke, N. (2013). A step-by-step approach to using SAS for factor analysis and structural equation modeling. Sas Institute.
18. Havlıoğlu, S., Ortabağ, T., & Winwood, P. C. (2019). Turkish validity and reliability of the occupational fatigue exhaustion/recovery scale.
19. Heiervang, E., & Goodman, R. (2011). Advantages and limitations of web-based surveys: evidence from a child mental health survey. Social psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology, 46, 69-76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-009-0171-9
20. Hobart, J., & Cano, S. (2009). Improving the evaluation of therapeutic interventions in multiple sclerosis: the role of new psychometric methods. Health technology assessment, 13(12), 1-200. https://doi.org/10.3310/hta13120
21. Hockey, R. (2013). The psychology of fatigue: Work, effort and control. Cambridge University Press.
22. Holman, J. A., Hornsby, B. W., Bess, F. H., & Naylor, G. (2021). Can listening-related fatigue influence well-being? Examining associations between hearing loss, fatigue, activity levels and well-being. International Journal of Audiology, 60(sup2), 47-59. https://doi.org/10.1080/14992027.2020.1853261
23. Hornsby, B. W. (2013). The effects of hearing aid use on listening effort and mental fatigue associated with sustained speech processing demands. Ear and hearing, 34(5), 523-534. https://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0b013e31828003d8
24. Hornsby, B. W., Camarata, S., Cho, S.-J., Davis, H., McGarrigle, R., & Bess, F. H. (2021). Development and validation of the Vanderbilt Fatigue Scale for Adults (VFS-A). Psychological Assessment. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0001021 Hornsby, B. W., Camarata, S., Cho, S. J., Davis, H., McGarrigle, R., & Bess, F. H. (2022). Development and evaluation of pediatric versions of the vanderbilt fatigue scale for children with hearing loss. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 65(6), 2343-2363. https://doi.org/10.1044/2022_JSLHR-22-00051
25. Hornsby, B. W., Camarata, S., Cho, S.-J., Davis, H., McGarrigle, R., & Bess, F. H. (2023). Development and Validation of a Brief Version of the Vanderbilt Fatigue Scale for Adults: The VFS-A-10. Ear and hearing, 10.1097. https://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0000000000001369
26. Hornsby, B. W., & Kipp, A. M. (2016). Subjective ratings of fatigue and vigor in adults with hearing loss are driven by perceived hearing difficulties not degree of hearing loss. Ear and hearing, 37(1), e1. https://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0000000000000203
27. Hughes, S. E., Hutchings, H. A., Rapport, F. L., McMahon, C. M., & Boisvert, I. (2018). Social connectedness and perceived listening effort in adult cochlear implant users: A grounded theory to establish content validity for a new patient-reported outcome measure. Ear and hearing, 39(5), 922-934. https://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0000000000000553
28. Kline, P. (1994). An easy guide to factor analysisRoutledge.
29. Kongsved, S. M., Basnov, M., Holm-Christensen, K., & Hjollund, N. H. (2007). Response rate and completeness of questionnaires: a randomized study of Internet versus paper-and-pencil versions. Journal of medical Internet research, 9(3), e611. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.9.3.e25
30. Koo, T. K., & Li, M. Y. (2016). A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. Journal of chiropractic medicine, 15(2), 155-163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012
31. Mackersie, C. L., MacPhee, I. X., & Heldt, E. W. (2015). Effects of hearing loss on heart rate variability and skin conductance measured during sentence recognition in noise. Ear and hearing, 36(1), 145-154. https://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0000000000000091
32. Mauz, E., von der Lippe, E., Allen, J., Schilling, R., Müters, S., Hoebel, J., Schmich, P., Wetzstein, M., Kamtsiuris, P., & Lange, C. (2018). Mixing modes in a population-based interview survey: comparison of a sequential and a concurrent mixed-mode design for public health research. Archives of Public Health, 76, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13690-017-0237-1
33. McGarrigle, R., Munro, K. J., Dawes, P., Stewart, A. J., Moore, D. R., Barry, J. G., & Amitay, S. (2014). Listening effort and fatigue: What exactly are we measuring? A British Society of Audiology Cognition in Hearing Special Interest Group ‘white paper’. International journal of audiology, 53(7), 433-445. https://doi.org/10.3109/14992027.2014.890296
34. Oba, S. I., Fu, Q.-J., & Galvin III, J. J. (2011). Digit training in noise can improve cochlear implant users’ speech understanding in noise. Ear and hearing, 32(5), 573. https://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0b013e31820fc821
35. Ohlenforst, B., Zekveld, A. A., Jansma, E. P., Wang, Y., Naylor, G., Lorens, A., Lunner, T., & Kramer, S. E. (2017). Effects of hearing impairment and hearing aid amplification on listening effort: A systematic review. Ear and hearing, 38(3), 267. https://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0000000000000396
36. Pals, C., Sarampalis, A., & Başkent, D. (2013). Listening effort with cochlear implant simulations. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2012/12-0074)
37. Sindhar, S., Friesen, T. L., Carpenter, D., Kesser, B., & Lieu, J. E. (2021). Fatigue in children with unilateral and bilateral hearing loss. Otology & Neurotology, 42(9), e1301-e1307. https://doi.org/10.1097/MAO.0000000000003225
38. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Experimental designs using ANOVA (Vol. 724). Thomson/ Brooks/ Cole Belmont, CA. https://doi.org/10.1044/2024_AJA-23-00209
39. Taşdemir, İ., Türkyılmaz, M. D., & Hornsby, B. W. (2024). Reliability and Validity of the Turkish Version of the Vanderbilt Fatigue Scale for Adults. American Journal of Audiology, 33(2), 532-542. https://doi.org/10.1044/2024_AJA-23-00209
40. Wang, Y., Naylor, G., Kramer, S. E., Zekveld, A. A., Wendt, D., Ohlenforst, B., & Lunner, T. (2018). Relations between self-reported daily-life fatigue, hearing status, and pupil dilation during a speech perception in noise task. Ear and hearing, 39(3), 573. https://doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0000000000000512
41. Wilson, D., & Allen, D. (2011). Success rates of online versus traditional college students. Research in Higher Education Journal, 14. https://doi.org/10.1044/2024_AJA-23-00209