Refinement and Validation of the Empowerment Audiology Questionnaire: Rasch Analysis and Traditional Psychometric Evaluation.
Rebecca J Bennett, Josefina Larsson, Sarah Gotowiec and 1 others
PMID 38082487WHAT IT FOUND
A 15-item questionnaire lets adults using hearing aids report empowerment and distinguishes high from low empowerment consistently.
A 5-item version is quicker but less consistent, so it may suit screening.
Key findings
01The original 33-item EmpAQ was reduced to a 15-item version and a 5-item version.
02In study 2, both EmpAQ versions fit the Rasch model. The 15-item version had person separation 0.874 and internal consistency 0.90, while the 5-item version had 0.655 and 0.72.
03Higher EmpAQ scores were associated with lower communication difficulties and lower social participation restriction, but the correlations were weaker than predicted.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for SLPs
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.
What it does not show
Participants chose to take part, and response rates were 29.67% in study 1 and 28.77% in study 2, so the samples may not represent all hearing aid owners. All participants came from one hearing service provider in Western Australia, and most used hearing aids for many hours each day, so results may not apply to people with less device use or poorer support. The study only included hearing aid owners, not people who have hearing difficulties but do not use hearing aids or are still seeking help. The cohorts reported high empowerment overall, so the measures were not tested across the full range of empowerment. Responsiveness and minimally important change were not tested, so a score change cannot be interpreted as meaningful improvement or decline. In study 2, participants completed the 5-item and 15-item versions in the same survey, which may have affected responses. Construct validity did not meet the guideline threshold that at least 75% of predefined hypotheses should be supported.
Declared interests
The project was funded by WAPAC. The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not use a change in EmpAQ score to claim that a treatment worked. The paper did not test responsiveness or minimally important change. Also, do not treat the 5-item version as equally strong for individual decisions. Its person separation was 0.655 in study 2, below the recommended 0.7 for good group use.