SLPSurveyAmerican journal of audiology2016

Online Data Collection to Evaluate a Theoretical Cognitive Model of Tinnitus.

Lucy Handscomb, Deborah A Hall, Gillian W Shorter and 1 others

PMID 27768195

WHAT IT FOUND

Questionnaire scores did not differ significantly between online and paper tinnitus surveys, but online respondents were younger.

Online completion avoided missing data; postal responses had 0.2% missing. This is a data-collection result, not a treatment finding.

Key findings

01342 of the 436 participants who consented completed the survey, and 323 of those completing used the online format while 19 used paper.

02Mean scores across the survey questionnaires did not differ significantly between online and paper respondents, despite the online group being younger.

03The online survey had no missing data, while mailed responses had 0.2% missing data.

STILL TO COME

How it was doneWhat they found

Read the rest of this summary

You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.

Already have one?

What it does not show

The paper reports survey completion, format comparison, and data quality, not the results of the tinnitus cognitive model or any treatment effect. Only 19 participants completed the paper version, so the comparison between online and paper formats rests on a small postal sample. The online group was younger than the paper group, so online results may not represent older adults with tinnitus. Recruitment came through tinnitus association channels and a research volunteer database, which may not represent all adults with tinnitus. Online participants had to answer every question before moving on, which may have produced inaccurate responses or led some to abandon the survey. IP addresses were not captured, so control for multiple entries was limited.

The easy way to misread this

Do not read the comparable online and paper questionnaire scores as proof that a tinnitus treatment works or that the cognitive model was confirmed. The paper reports survey completion and data quality, not treatment outcomes or model results.

Read it on PubMed →