Ardıç Fazıl Necdet, Tümkaya Funda, Akdağ Beyza, Şenol Hande
a Department of Otolaryngology , Pamukkale University, School of Medicine , Denizli , Turkey.
b Department of Biostatistics , Pamukkale University, School of Medicine , Denizli , Turkey.
Disabil Rehabil. 2017 Oct;39(20):2119-2122. doi: 10.1080/09638288.2016.1219923. Epub 2016 Aug 22.
Dizziness Handicap Inventory (DHI) is one of the most frequently used surveys for vertigo. The aim of the study was re-analyze the consistency of subscales and correlation between original and different short forms.
The data of 2111 patients were analyzed. Original three subscales, screening form of DHI and short form of DHI were evaluated. The suitability of the data set for factor analysis and factor structure was analyzed with Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) coefficient, Bartlett's Sphericity Test, and Varimax method. Pearson correlation analysis was performed.
Factor analysis showed that two factor solutions are more prominent in our data. The factors proposed in different studies are not in harmony with each other. There is high correlation between the original and screening and short forms of DHI.
This study indicated that the factor structure of the scale was not consistent. It is not advised to use subscale scores for comparison especially in international level. Therefore, total score should be used rather than the scores of the subscales. Using DHI screening form instead of original 25 questions is more convenient, because it is highly correlated with the original one and has fewer questions. Implications for rehabilitation Factor structure of the DHI is not consistent enough for comparison of the international studies. Total score of DHI is reliable. Using the screening version of DHI is better, because it is highly correlated with the original form and has fewer questions (10 questions).
头晕残障量表(DHI)是眩晕最常用的调查问卷之一。本研究旨在重新分析该量表各子量表的一致性以及原始版本与不同简化版本之间的相关性。
分析了2111例患者的数据。对原始的三个子量表、DHI筛查表和DHI简化版进行评估。采用Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin(KMO)系数、Bartlett球形检验和方差最大化法分析数据集对因子分析和因子结构的适用性。进行Pearson相关性分析。
因子分析表明,在我们的数据中,两因子解更为突出。不同研究提出的因子彼此不一致。DHI原始版本与筛查表和简化版之间存在高度相关性。
本研究表明该量表的因子结构不一致。不建议使用子量表得分进行比较,尤其是在国际层面。因此,应使用总分而非子量表得分。使用DHI筛查表而非原始的25个问题更方便,因为它与原始版本高度相关且问题更少。康复意义:DHI的因子结构在国际研究比较中不够一致。DHI总分可靠。使用DHI筛查版更好,因为它与原始版本高度相关且问题更少(10个问题)。