Development of the Social Participation Restrictions Questionnaire (SPaRQ) through consultation with adults with hearing loss, researchers, and clinicians: a content evaluation study

Abstract

Objective: This research aimed to evaluate the content of the Social Participation Restrictions Questionnaire (SPaRQ) in terms of its relevance, clarity, comprehensiveness, acceptability to adults with hearing loss, and responsiveness.

Design: Cognitive interviews and a subject matter expert survey were conducted. The interview data were analysed using thematic analysis and a taxonomy of questionnaire clarity problems. Descriptive statistics were calculated for the survey data.

Study sample: Fourteen adults with hearing loss participated in the cognitive interviews. Twenty clinicians and academics completed the subject matter expert survey.

Results: The majority of the SPaRQ content was found to be relevant, clear, comprehensive, and acceptable. However, an important clarity problem was identified: many adults with hearing loss struggled to switch from answering positively worded items (e.g. “I can attend social gatherings”) to answering negatively-worded items (e.g. “I feel isolated”). Several subject matter experts found responsiveness difficult to assess. The SPaRQ was amended where necessary.

Conclusion: Few hearing-specific questionnaires have undergone content evaluation. This study highlights the value of content evaluation as a means of identifying important flaws and improving the quality of a measure. The next stage of this research is a psychometric evaluation of the measure.

Keywords:

• Hearing loss
• social participation
• qualitative research
• content validity
• questionnaire development
• outcome measurement

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Sandra Smith, Alex Barker, the participants, and the PPI representatives for their contribution to this research.

Disclosure statement

This paper presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR, or the Department of Health and Social Care in the UK. The authors report no conflicts of interest.