 |
|
Validation of an Outcomes Instrument for Tonsil and Adenoid Disease
Michael G. Stewart, MD, MPH;
Ellen M. Friedman, MD;
Marcelle Sulek, MD;
Andrew deJong, MD;
Gregory F. Hulka, MD;
Marilyn H. Bautista, MPH;
Susan E. Anderson, RN
Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2001;127:29-35.
ABSTRACT
| |
Objective To design and validate a disease-specific health status instrument—the
Tonsil and Adenoid Health Status Instrument—for use in children with
tonsil and adenoid disease.
Design Prospective psychometric and clinimetric instrument validation in 3
stages.
Settings A tertiary academic pediatric specialty hospital and a tertiary academic
hospital, in 2 different cities.
Patients/Other Participants Children with tonsil and adenoid disease presenting for evaluation and
treatment (n = 224).
Intervention/Method Prospective instrument validation. Stage 1 consisted of initial item
testing, reduction, and subscale construction; stage 2, reliability and validity
testing, factor analysis, and final item reduction; and stage 3, responsiveness
analysis.
Main Outcome Measures Test-retest and internal consistency reliability; content, construct,
and criterion validity; orthogonal principal components factor analysis; and
response sensitivity analysis.
Results Factor analysis and item analysis confirmed 6 distinct subscales measuring
different constructs (aspects) of disease-specific health status that are
affected by tonsil and adenoid disease: eating and swallowing, airway and
breathing, infections, health care utilization, cost of care, and behavior.
For each subscale, the Tonsil and Adenoid Health Status Instrument demonstrated
excellent test-retest reliability (r = 0.72-0.88)
and internal consistency reliability (Cronbach  = .73-.87). Content
validity was ensured during the design process. Construct validity was demonstrated
by means of convergent and divergent validity with a global quality-of-life
instrument (the Child Health Questionnaire, version PF28). Criterion validity
was also satisfactory. Finally, the instrument was appropriately sensitive,
with high standardized response means and effect sizes.
Conclusions The Tonsil and Adenoid Health Status Instrument is a valid, reliable,
and sensitive instrument with 6 distinct subscales. This instrument has significant
utility for outcomes research in children with tonsil and adenoid disease.
INTRODUCTION
ADENOTONSILLECTOMY is still a frequently performed pediatric surgical
procedure.1, 2, 3 Although
many authors have studied the effectiveness of adenotonsillectomy,4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
its indications remain poorly defined and/or controversial.9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14
As evidence of this controversy, the population rate of adenotonsillectomy
differs significantly in different regions of the United States, Canada, and
Europe.15, 16 Therefore, further
research is needed to better define the effects of adenotonsillectomy on the
health status and quality of life (QOL) of affected children.
There is no standard definition of quality of life, but health services researchers agree that QOL must be measured from
the patient's perspective (ie, it is subjective) and that QOL is made up of
a combination of different concepts or constructs (ie, it is multidimensional).17, 18 "Disease-specific health status"
is one aspect of QOL, which refers to the specific impact of one disease on
aspects of health status affected by that disease. Quality of life and disease-specific
health status are typically measured by means of validated questionnaires,
or instruments, that are completed by the patient.
Although there are hundreds of validated instruments that measure QOL
and functional or health status in adults,19
the measurement of QOL and health status in pediatric patients has only recently
been addressed.20, 21 There are
a few validated instruments available that measure global QOL in children,22, 23, 24, 25, 26
but there are no instruments that measure disease-specific health status in
children with tonsil and adenoid (T&A) disease. Because T&A disease
affects children with different communication skills, the parent who is the
primary caretaker is surveyed as a proxy for the affected child. In general,
using a proxy for health status assessment is discouraged in adult patients,27 but it is a common and accepted practice in the pediatric
population.20, 24, 28
In this report, we describe in detail the validation of a disease-specific
health status instrument for use in children with T&A disease and, in
addition, describe potential clinical and research uses for the instrument.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This was a multicenter prospective instrument validation study in 3
phases. This study was approved by the Baylor College of Medicine Institutional
Review Board for Human Subjects Research (Houston, Tex). All analyses were
performed with SPSS 7.0 statistical software (SPSS Inc, Chicago, Ill).
Phases 1, 2, and 3 have been partially described in another publication.29
PHASE 1
An expert group identified 31 individual concepts related to health
status in T&A disease and constructed questions (items) for each individual
concept, along with summary items concerning the overall impact of each dimension
on health status. Items were all constructed with the use of a 5-part Likert
scale (not a problem, very mild problem, moderate problem, fairly bad problem,
and severe problem), and were phrased, "How much of a problem is . . . ."
The alpha-version of the instrument was structured into a telephone interview
format, with the use of the principles of Sudman and Bradburn.30
The instrument asked the parent to recall the previous 6 months.
Inclusion criteria were age of 2 to 16 years and diagnosis of any combination
of the following: recurrent tonsillitis, recurrent pharyngitis, chronic tonsillitis,
at least 2 episodes of peritonsillar abscess, tonsil hypertrophy, airway obstruction,
obstructive sleep pattern, obstructive sleep apnea, and hypopnea. Exclusion
criteria were diagnosis of possible malignant neoplasm of the tonsil or adenoid;
emergency surgery (eg, for peritonsillar abscess); adenoidectomy alone, performed
for treatment of otologic disease; marked immunodeficiency (such as human
immunodeficiency virus infection, severe combined immunodeficiency disorder,
iatrogenic immunodeficiency from treatment of a malignant neoplasm, etc);
complete cleft of the secondary palate; and non–English-speaking primary
caretaker.
Recurrent tonsillitis or pharyngitis was defined
as 3 or more episodes of infection in 12 months. Chronic
tonsillitis was defined as persistent symptoms of tonsillitis (ie,
odynophagia, sore throat, dysphagia, fever, and cervical adenopathy) for at
least 3 months. Obstructive sleep pattern and obstructive sleep apnea or hypopnea were defined by either
a characteristic history of obstructive sleep pattern—such as witnessed
apnea, or witnessed loud snoring combined with respiratory disturbance—or
a tape recording of the child sleeping that demonstrates the sleep disturbance
or a polysomnogram. Tonsil hypertrophy was defined
by the attending otolaryngologist examination as bilateral tonsil size of
at least 3 of 4 points on a widely used standardized 4-point scale.4
Telephone interviews were performed by 2 of us (M.G.S. and M.H.B.) with
extensive experience in interview techniques, and 2 otolaryngology resident
physicians who were trained and validated in telephone interview techniques.
Items that had to be repeated or caused the parents to ask for further explanation
were noted by the interviewer.
Item responses from the alpha-version instrument were entered into a
spreadsheet in SPSS. Initial item reduction was performed by sequential statistical
analysis, including individual item analysis, internal consistency reliability,
construct validity, item-item and item-subgroup correlations, and factor analysis.
All statistical analyses were performed with SPSS version 7.0 statistical
software.31
Next, a large table was constructed with individual items in rows, and
several columns containing the results of individual item analysis, internal
consistency reliability, item-item correlation, item-subgroup importance correlation,
and item–summary scale correlation, all graded on a subjective 0 to
3 scale. The following scale was used to assess the item's "performance" on
the test of interest: 0 indicates poor performance; 1, marginal performance;
2, good performance; and 3, excellent performance. Another column contained
the number of times a subject had difficulty answering the item. Items with
adequate score distribution, high internal consistency reliability, high item-item
and item-subgroup importance correlation, and low amount of respondent difficulty
were selected for inclusion in the beta-version of the instrument; overall,
18 items were selected. Of note, no items had significantly different results
for the individual analyses. Items with poor internal consistency typically
also had poor subgroup importance correlation, poor score distribution, etc.
The items on the beta-version instrument were rewritten into a format for
self-completion (rather than interview) by the method of Aday.30
With the use of the 18 remaining items after initial item reduction,
confirmatory factor analysis was performed to assess the grouping of items
into subgroups. Principal components factor extraction was performed by means
of orthogonal varimax rotation of factors.31, 32
All factors with an eigenvalue greater than 1.0 were included in the final
rotated factor solution; a scree plot was examined to assess the relative
magnitude of eigenvalues obtained.
PHASE 2
Between July 1,1997, and June 30, 1998, at the Baylor College of Medicine
and Duke University School of Medicine (Durham, NC) sites, consecutive parents
of eligible children were given the beta-version instrument and a validated
global QOL instrument, the Child Health Questionnaire version PF28 (CHQ-PF28).25, 29 The first analysis completed in phase
2 was factor analysis, to allow the construction of independent subscales.
Factor analysis was performed with orthogonal varimax rotation of factors32, 33; several solutions were calculated.
All factors with an eigenvalue greater than 1.0 were analyzed to minimize
unexplained variance; solutions using 5, 4, 3, and 2 total factors were calculated
to assess the degree of unexplained variance in each model. On the basis of
the data from phase 1, we anticipated that a solution with approximately 5
factors would explain an adequate amount of variance.
Using these results, we then constructed subscales. Items were scored
from 0 to 4, and items were summed to obtain the subscale raw score. Subscale
raw scores were scaled to a minimum of 0 and a maximum of 100, by means of
the following formula: scaled score = [(raw score - min score)/(max
score - min score)] x 100, where max score
indicates the maximum possible subscale score, and min score, the minimum possible subscale score.
Test-retest reliability was assessed in a subgroup of patients scheduled
for adenotonsillectomy by repeating the administration of the beta-version
of the instrument at the time of surgery, 2 to 6 weeks after the initial completion.
Patients with surgery scheduled for earlier than 2 weeks after the initial
visit were not used in the assessment of test-retest reliability. Test-retest
reliability for subscales was assessed by means of the Goodman-Kruskal 
coefficient between test administrations.34
Internal consistency reliability for subscales containing at least 2
items was assessed by calculating the Cronbach coefficient30, 34 and noting item-total correlations.
Items that did not contribute to the internal consistency of a subscale were
noted for potential deletion.
Construct validity was assessed by means of (1) a multitrait, multi-item
correlation matrix with the CHQ-PF2830, 34;
(2) item-subscale and subscale-subscale correlations; and (3) between-group
discrimination. Constructs assessed on the global CHQ instrument included
global health; physical functioning; role and social limitations–emotional
or behavioral; role and social limitations–physical; bodily pain or
discomfort; behavior; mental health; self-esteem; parental impact–emotional;
and parental impact–time.25 Because of
the nonparametric nature of the data, Spearman correlation coefficients were
used throughout. A preliminary "expected correlation" matrix was created a
priori by means of subscales from the T&A instrument and the CHQ-PF28
for the purpose of analyzing the results. For instance, health care utilization would be expected to correlate with parental impact–time and not with mental health. Furthermore, the "behavior" item on the instrument should correlate
with the behavior subscale on the CHQ-PF28, and so on. Between-group discrimination
was assessed by comparing subscale scores between children who had documented
sleep-disordered breathing (SDB) and children with other indications for surgery.
Children with known SDB should have significantly worse airway and breathing
subscale scores than children without SDB. Furthermore, children with SDB
should not necessarily have significantly different health care utilization
subscale scores than children without SDB. This was examined by comparing
subscale scores between groups with the Mann-Whitney test.
Criterion validity was also assessed.29
Correlation coefficients were compared between subscale scores and the objective
indicators of (1) infections (eg, antibiotics prescribed), (2) breathing and
airway (eg, tonsil size and results of polysomnogram), and (3) health care
utilization (eg, number of telephone calls and number of physician visits)
gathered from chart abstraction. There were no reliable criterion measures
to use for validation of the behavior or swallowing subscales.
PHASE 3
Between August 1, 1998, and December 31, 1999, at the Baylor site, a
consecutive sample of children undergoing adenotonsillectomy was studied prospectively
to assess the response sensitivity of the instrument. Entry criteria were
the same as for phases 1 and 2 of the study. Parents were given the T&A
Health Status Instrument before the child's surgery, then again at least 6
months after the child's surgery, since the instrument measures the preceding
6-month period. Response sensitivity after surgical treatment was assessed
by calculating the standardized response mean and the effect size34, 35, 36 and by comparing
these values with published standards.
RESULTS
In phase 1, a total of 34 interviews were conducted; the mean age of
affected children was 6.8 years (median, 5.5 years; range, 2-15 years). There
were 18 boys and 16 girls, and the ethnic distribution was as follows: white,
17 (50%); African American, 6 (18%); Hispanic, 3 (9%); Asian American, 2 (6%);
and no data available, 6 (18%).
Individual item analysis was performed to assess the mean, median, range,
variance, and distribution skewness of responses for all 37 items. For optimum
discriminatory power, item variance should be relatively high, means should
be near the midpoint of possible scores, and the range of responses should
reflect the largest possible range of scores.34
Thirty-five of 37 items had a response range from 0 to 4 (the lowest and highest
possible scores), and the other 2 items had a response range of 0 to 3. Floor
and ceiling effects were also examined for each item. Items with poor distribution
were noted for possible deletion.
Questions within 4 of the 5 subscales (airway and breathing, infection,
swallowing and eating, and health care utilization) were analyzed for internal
consistency reliability by means of the Cronbach coefficient30, 34; the behavior subscale contained
too few items for analysis. Several variables were assessed to explore relationships
between individual items and the subscale: the coefficient with the
item deleted, the corrected item-total correlation, and the squared multiple
correlation.31, 34
The initial coefficients for the 4 subscales were between 0.67
and 0.81. After items that tested poorly were eliminated, the coefficients
for the subscales in the alpha-version instrument were as follows: infection,
= .74; health care utilization, = .83; airway and breathing,
= .80; and swallowing and eating, = .72.
To assess construct validity, items from each subgroup were correlated
with (1) other items from the same subgroup, (2) the overall "importance"
item for that subgroup, and (3) a summary item for health impact. Item-item,
item-subgroup, and item-summary correlations were evaluated in correlation
matrixes by means of Spearman coefficients, with the level of significance
set at Spearman  >0.40. An example item-item correlation matrix for the
airway and breathing subscale is shown in Table 1. Table 2 demonstrates
the item-subgroup importance correlations for the entire instrument, as well
as the item–summary scale correlations. To assess divergent validity,
items were also correlated with items not in their subscale (data not shown);
as expected, these correlations were uniformly nonsignificant.
|
|
|
|
Table 1. Interitem Correlations for the Airway and Breathing Items
From Phase I Version of the Instrument*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Table 2. Item Importance and Item Summary Scale Correlation Coefficients
for Phase I Version of the Instrument*
|
|
|
As discussed in the "Materials and Methods" section, initial analysis
yielded 18 items for inclusion in the beta-version of the instrument. These
18 items were studied by means of a confirmatory factor analysis, and 6 orthogonal
factors were identified that accounted for 75.3% of the variance in the model.
The sixth factor, which represented 6.6% of the total variance, only loaded
onto 1 item: item 1 (loud snoring). These 6 factors, and the items that loaded
onto them, are listed in Table 3.
This completed the analysis of the alpha-version of the instrument.
|
|
|
|
Table 3. Principal Component Factors Identified From Confirmatory Factor
Analysis of Phase I Version of the Instrument and Items That Primarily Load
Onto Each Factor
|
|
|
As previously discussed, a shorter version of the instrument (the beta-version)
was then created and tested in a separate patient population (n = 158) for
phase 2 of the study. There were 59% boys and 41% girls, and mean age was
5.8 years (median, 5.0 years; range, 2-15 years).
Repeated factor analysis of data from patients in phase 2 demonstrated
that a 5-factor solution yielded the highest explained variance (70% vs 64%
for 4 factors and 56% for 3 factors). Factor analysis with total variance,
along with examination of the scree plot, demonstrated that the eigenvalue
of the sixth factor was 0.84, confirming that a 5-factor solution was ideal.
Individual items were grouped into subscales according to their principal
factors for the remainder of the analysis. The behavior item did not load
onto any of the 5 principal factors but was believed to be important, so it
was included as a separate item and subscale. On the basis of factor loadings
and content, the 6 subscales were named airway and breathing (4 items), infections
(4 items), eating and swallowing (2 items), health care utilization (5 items),
cost of care (2 items), and behavior (1 item).
Initial assessment after phase 2 indicated that internal consistency
reliability was also high for all subscales. Individual item analysis disclosed
that the 2 items related to cost could be combined into a single item (the
item-item correlation coefficient was 0.95). In addition, an item concerning
repeated acute infections had poor internal consistency and low item-total
correlation with other subscale items, and therefore it was deleted. Similarly,
an item related to missed days of school had poor internal consistency and
low item-total correlation and was also deleted. The internal reliability
coefficients increased for both subscales after those items were deleted.
Therefore, after elimination of those 3 items, the subscales contained the
following numbers of items: airway and breathing, 4 items; infections, 3 items;
eating and swallowing, 2 items; health care utilization, 4 items; cost of
care, 1 item; and behavior, 1 item.
Cronbach coefficients of at least .70 are considered adequate
for group comparisons,34 and the coefficients
for subscales with at least 2 items were all adequate.29
Test-retest reliability was also very strong for all subscales. Reliability
coefficients greater than 0.70 are considered acceptable,34
and the subscale coefficients were as follows: airway and breathing,
= 0.80; infections, = 0.74; eating and swallowing, = 0.84;
health care utilization, = 0.78; cost of care, = 0.72; and
behavior, = 0.88. In all subscales with at least 2 items, the Spearman
correlation coefficients between repeated administrations were even higher
than the reliability coefficients ( = 0.74-0.89).
Validity was not measured by a single test, but rather was inferred
from a compilation of evidence of different types of validity. Content validity
was ensured during the design phase of the instrument.29
In the assessment of construct validity, a multitrait, multi-item correlation
matrix was created, and several expected associations were identified. All
correlation coefficients were negative, since the T&A instrument and CHQ
are scored in opposite directions (higher scores indicate poorer disease-specific
health status but better global QOL). For instance, the utilization subscale
correlated significantly with the parental impact–time subscale on the
CHQ ( = -0.42; P = .001) but not with
unrelated subscales such as mental health or self-esteem. The infection subscale
correlated significantly with the bodily pain ( = -0.39; P = .003) and parental impact–time ( = -0.36; P = .006) subscales. The airway and breathing subscale
correlated with the physical functioning ( = -0.52; P<.001) and global health ( = -0.47; P<.001) subscales on the CHQ. The behavior item strongly correlated
with the behavior subscale on the CHQ ( = -0.61; P<.001), and also with the self-esteem ( = -0.53; P<.001), mental health ( = -0.50; P<.001), and parental impact–emotional ( = -0.40; P = .002) subscales. The eating and swallowing subscale
measured a construct not explored on the CHQ, and, as expected, no significant
correlations were identified.
Construct validity of the T&A instrument was further demonstrated
by the strong convergent and divergent validity shown in the item-subscale
correlations: highly significant correlations were noted between items and
their related subscale and nonsignificant correlations between items and nonrelated
subscales. For instance, none of the items on the infections subscale correlated
with items on the eating and swallowing subscale. Of course, there were some
associations across subscales (for instance, infections were associated with
increased health care utilization and increased cost of care, and cost of
care was independently associated with health care utilization, etc).
As a final test of construct validity, the instrument demonstrated a
strong ability for between-group discrimination. Airway and breathing subscale
scores were significantly higher in a group of children with documented SDB
than in a group without SDB (mean scores, 66.0 and 32.3, respectively; P<.001); other subscale scores did not differ between
children with and without SDB (behavior subscale, P
= .13; cost subscale, P = .38; utilization subscale, P = .30).
Criterion validity was demonstrated by assessing the correlations between
appropriate subscale scores and objective clinical data available from 74
children. The number of documented infections in the previous 6 months correlated
significantly with the infection (Spearman = 0.55; P<.001) and utilization ( = 0.34; P
= .004) subscales. Similarly, the correlations between the number of actual
physician visits and the utilization ( = 0.32; P
= .007) and cost ( = 0.26; P = .03) subscales
were weaker but still statistically significant, even with a relatively small
sample size. The sample of patients with objective polysomnogram data was
inadequate for analysis of criterion validity of the airway and breathing
subscale.
Finally, in phase 3 of the study, 62 children were enrolled and 32 completed
the 6-month repeated version of the instrument. The instrument demonstrated
very high levels of response sensitivity for 5 of the 6 subscales, as measured
by both the standardized response mean and effect size. The standardized response
means for each subscale were as follows: airway, 1.42; infections, 1.16; utilization,
1.38; eating and swallowing, 0.90; cost, 0.65; and behavior, 0.10. The calculated
effect sizes were very similar, ranging from 1.49 (airway) to 0.14 (behavior).
As a rule, standardized response mean and effect size values of approximately
0.2 represent low sensitivity to change, approximately 0.5 indicates moderate
sensitivity, and around 0.8 indicates high sensitivity,35, 36
so the instrument clearly shows high sensitivity to clinical change in all
subscales except the behavior subscale.
A final version of the instrument is shown in Figure 1. Items and their associated subscales are as follows: airway
and breathing subscale, items 1, 7, 11, and 13; infection subscale, items
2, 8, and 9; health care utilization subscale, items 3, 4, 5, and 6; eating
and swallowing subscale, items 12 and 14; cost of care subscale, item 10;
and behavior subscale, item 15. As discussed previously, each subscale should
be scored so that scores range from 0 (minimum score) to 100 (maximum score).
|
|
|
|
Final version of the Tonsil and Adenoid Health Status Instrument.
|
|
|
COMMENT
For many diseases, disease-specific health status instruments are necessary
to assess changes in health status that are clinically important, but perhaps
too subtle to be detected by means of a global QOL instrument.27
This has been demonstrated in patients with ocular cataracts,37
chronic sinusitis,35 and many other diseases.
We have now completed validation of the T&A Health Status Instrument.
The instrument was also designed to be comprehensive so that children with
any T&A-related problems could be studied with the same instrument. Containing
only 15 items, the instrument is easy to complete in a few minutes, and this
low respondent burden makes the instrument ideal for multiple administrations
in prospective or longitudinal trials. Since the T&A instrument was not
designed to assess overall QOL, the additional use of a global QOL instrument
such as the CHQ may be beneficial.
The T&A Health Status Instrument was validated for use in groups
of children, not individual patients. Therefore, the instrument is very reliable
and sensitive for comparing outcomes in groups (for instance, those treated
with and without surgery), but not for predicting treatment outcome in an
individual patient. This is an important point to remember when choosing a
health status or QOL instrument for clinical or research use, because most
health status instruments were validated for use in group comparisons.
The instrument described could be used to measure the patient- and family-based
severity of "mild to moderate" T&A disease—for instance, those who
do not seem to meet accepted surgical criteria for adenotonsillectomy but
still seem to be affected. It might be that the disease-specific health status
of these children is no better than that of children who meet an accepted
surgical indication, such as a minimum number of infections per year.
The instrument could also be used to describe the natural course of
T&A disease over time. Many clinicians believe that children outgrow their
problems with T&A disease, and that watchful waiting is a good option
in patients who do not have severe disease. However, there are few objective
data to support this assertion. By periodically measuring the disease-specific
health status of children who are treated with watchful waiting, we could
better define the natural course of the disease. Of course, knowing the natural
course of untreated disease would enable us to better assess the true effects
of treatment.
Another important use of the instrument is for prospective measurement
of the health status impact of medical or surgical treatment. Groups of patients
with T&A disease could complete the instrument at presentation and then
again after treatment. The instrument measures a 6-month period, so it should
be used at least 6 months after treatment is completed. If the treatment is
effective, then subscale scores should improve significantly; in fact, treatment
efficacy could be compared between treatments by assessing relative improvement
in patient-based health status. For instance, at 1 year, treatment of recurrent
tonsillitis with antibiotics and watchful waiting could show health status
improvement equivalent to that with tonsillectomy. Similarly, one could compare
health status improvement after treatment of SDB with either continuous positive
airway pressure or adenotonsillectomy. These prospective studies will be important
in measuring the efficacy of adenotonsillectomy as treatment in affected children.
If a global QOL instrument is used in addition to the T&A instrument,
then the changes in overall QOL after treatment could also be compared. However,
in general, global instruments are much less sensitive to treatment effects
than are disease-specific instruments. One benefit of using global instruments
is that global QOL can be compared (ie, benchmarked) against global QOL in
other diseases. While these comparisons between different diagnoses can be
flawed (for instance, by the presence of other comorbid disease), these data
can provide useful insight into the relative global burden of a particular
disease.
The instrument is scored into subscales, as described previously. These
subscale scores can quantitate the degree of impact of different aspects of
T&A disease in any given population or sample. For instance, one group
of patients may be primarily affected with airway or breathing problems, whereas
another group of patients may have infectious problems. The subscales are
each scaled so that scores range from 0 (no impact) to 100 (maximum impact).
Therefore, effective treatment should result in lower subscale scores; similarly,
more effective treatments should result in larger numerical improvement in
scores. Although individual subscale scores could in theory be added to obtain
a "total" T&A score, that is not recommended. For a total score to be
valid, the relative contribution of each subscale would have to be equivalent;
for example, if there were 3 subscales, then each must make up 33.3% of the
total score value—and those relative impacts are not known. It is preferable
that individual subscale scores be used for analysis and interpretation.
The results obtained from prospective studies of children with T&A
disease, such as those described herein, should help primary care and specialty
physicians reevaluate current treatment indications and protocols for this
prevalent problem, and should help ensure improved health status and QOL for
affected children in the future.
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Accepted for publication July 13, 2000.
This study was supported by grant R03-HS09829 from the Agency for Health
Care Policy and Research, Rockville, Md (Dr Stewart).
Presented in part at the American Society of Pediatric Otolaryngology
meeting, Palm Desert, Calif, April 29, 1999.
From the Bobby R. Alford Department of Otorhinolaryngology and Communicative
Sciences, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Tex (Drs Stewart, Friedman,
Sulek, and deJong and Ms Bautista), and the Division of Otolaryngology–Head
and Neck Surgery, Department of Surgery, Duke University School of Medicine,
Durham, NC (Dr Hulka and Ms Anderson).
Corresponding author and reprints: Michael G. Stewart, MD, MPH, Baylor
College of Medicine, One Baylor Plaza (NA-102), Houston, TX 77030 (e-mail: mgstew{at}bcm.tmc.edu).
REFERENCES
| |
1. Gabalski EC, Mattucci KF, Setzen M, Moleski P. Ambulatory tonsillectomy and adenoidectomy. Laryngoscope. 1996;106:77-80.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
2. Derkay CS. Pediatric otolaryngology procedures in the United States: 1977-1987. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 1993;25:1-12.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
3. Freeman JL, Jekel JF, Freeman DH. Changes in age and sex specific tonsillectomy rates: United States,
1970-1977. Am J Public Health. 1982;72:488-491.
FREE FULL TEXT
4. Potsic WP, Pasquariello PS, Baranak CC, Marsh RR, Miller LM. Relief of upper airway obstruction by adenotonsillectomy. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1986;94:476-480.
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
5. Suen JS, Arnold JE, Brooks LJ. Adenotonsillectomy for treatment of obstructive sleep apnea in children. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1995;121:525-530.
FREE FULL TEXT
6. Paradise JL, Bluestone CD, Bachman RZ, et al. Efficacy of tonsillectomy for recurrent throat infection in severely
affected children. N Engl J Med. 1984;310:674-683.
ABSTRACT
7. McKee WJE. A controlled study of the effects of tonsillectomy and adenoidectomy
in children. Br J Prev Soc Med. 1963;17:49-69.
WEB OF SCIENCE
8. Fry TL, Pillsbury HC. The implications of "controlled" studies of tonsillectomy and adenoidectomy. Otolaryngol Clin North Am. 1987;20:409-413.
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
9. Kavanagh KT, Beckford NS. Adenotonsillectomy in children: indications and contraindications. South Med J. 1988;81:507-511.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
10. Gates GA, Folbre TW. Indications for adenotonsillectomy. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1986;112:501-502.
FREE FULL TEXT
11. Berkowitz RG, Zalzal GH. Tonsillectomy in children under 3 years of age. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1990;116:685-686.
FREE FULL TEXT
12. Truy E, Merad F, Robin P, Fantino B, Morgon A. Failures in outpatient tonsillectomy policy in children: a retrospective
study in 311 children. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 1994;29:33-42.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
13. Schloss MD, Tan AKW, Schloss B, Tewfik TL. Outpatient tonsillectomy and adenoidectomy: complications and recommendations. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 1994;30:115-122.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
14. Indications for tonsillectomy and adenoidectomy, phase I. Natl Inst Health Consens Dev Conf Summ. 1977-1978;1:27-29.
15. McPherson K, Wennberg JE, Hovind OB, Clifford P. Small-area variations in the use of common surgical procedures: an
international comparison of New England, England, and Norway. N Engl J Med. 1982;307:1310-1314.
ABSTRACT
16. Rafuse J. Education, practice reviews needed to reduce surgical intervention,
Quebec report says. CMAJ. 1996;155:463-464.
ABSTRACT
17. Cella DF, Bonomi AE. Measuring quality of life: 1995 update. Oncology. 1995;9:47-60.
PUBMED
18. Stewart MG. Outcomes research: where we have been, where we need to go. In: Isenberg SF, ed. Managed Care, Outcomes, and
Quality: A Practical Guide. New York, NY: Thieme Medical Publishers
Inc; 1997:85-98.
19. Berzon RA, Simeon GP, Simpson RL, Donnelly MA, Tilson HH. Quality of life bibliography and indexes: 1993 update. Qual Life Res. 1995;4:53-74.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
20. Pal DK. Quality of life assessment in children: a review of conceptual and
methodological issues in multidimensional health status measures. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1996;50:391-396.
FREE FULL TEXT
21. Vivier PM, Bernier JA, Starfield B. Current approaches to measuring health outcomes in pediatric research. Curr Opin Pediatr. 1994;6:530-537.
PUBMED
22. Feeny D, Furlong W, Barr RD, Torrance GW, Rosenbaum P, Weitzman S. A comprehensive multiattribute system for classifying the health status
of survivors of childhood cancer. J Clin Oncol. 1992;10:923-928.
ABSTRACT
23. Stein R, Jessop D. Functional Status II(R): a measure of child health status. Med Care. 1990;28:1041-1055.
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
24. Lewis C, Pantell R, Kieckhefer G. Assessment of children's health status: field test of new approaches. Med Care. 1989;27(suppl):S54-S65.
25. Landgraf JM, Abetz L, Ware JE. Child Health Questionnaire (CHQ): A User's Manual. Boston, Mass: Health Institute, New England Medical Center; 1996.
26. Starfield B, Bergner M, Ensminger M, et al. Adolescent health status measurement: development of the child health
and illness profile. Pediatrics. 1993;91:430-435.
FREE FULL TEXT
27. Epstein AM, Hall JA, Tognetti J, Son LH, Conant L. Using proxies to evaluate quality of life. Med Care. 1989;27(3, suppl):S91-S98.
28. Forrest CB, Simpson L, Clancy C. Child health services research: challenges and opportunities. JAMA. 1997;277:1787-1793.
FREE FULL TEXT
29. Stewart MG. Pediatric outcomes research: development of an outcomes instrument
for tonsil and adenoid disease. Laryngoscope. 2000;110(suppl 94):12-15.
30. Aday L. Designing and Conducting Health Surveys. 2nd ed. San Francisco, Calif: Jossey-Bass Publishers; 1996.
31. Norusis MJ. SPSS Professional Statistics 6.1. Chicago, Ill: SPSS Press; 1996.
32. Lipsey MW. Design Sensitivity: Statistical Power for Experimental
Research. Newbury Park, Calif: Sage Publications; 1990.
33. Tacq J. Factor analysis. In: Multivariate Analysis Techniques in Social
Science Research. London, England: Sage Publications; 1997:266-321.
34. DeVellis R. Scale Development: Theory and Applications. Newbury Park: Sage Publications; 1991.
35. Gliklich RE, Hilinski JM. Longitudinal sensitivity of generic and specific health measures in
chronic sinusitis. Qual Life Res. 1995;4:27-32.
FULL TEXT
|
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
36. Liang MH, Fossel AH, Larson MG. Comparisons of five health status instruments for orthopedic evaluation. Med Care. 1990;28:632-642.
WEB OF SCIENCE
| PUBMED
37. Damiano AM, Steinberg EP, Cassard SD, et al. Comparison of generic versus disease-specific measures of functional
impairment in patients with cataract. Med Care. 1995;33(suppl):AS120-AS130.
 CiteULike  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Reddit  Technorati  Twitter
What's this?
RELATED ARTICLE
Archives of Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery Reader's Choice: Continuing Medical Education
Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2001;127(1):94.
FULL TEXT
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
Quality of Life and Sleep Study Findings After Adenotonsillectomy in Children With Obstructive Sleep Apnea
Stewart et al.
Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2005;131:308-314.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Effectiveness of adenotonsillectomy in children with mild symptoms of throat infections or adenotonsillar hypertrophy: open, randomised controlled trial
van Staaij et al.
BMJ 2004;329:651.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
|
