卡纳达语版扩展努力评估量表（EEAS-K）在听力损失成人中的跨文化调适与心理测量学验证

文献信息

中文摘要

引言： 扩展努力评估量表（EEAS）是近期开发的用于测量聆听努力的问卷，但目前缺乏针对卡纳达语使用者的验证版本。本研究旨在翻译、跨文化调适并对EEAS进行心理测量学验证，以适用于卡纳达语听力损失成人。
方法： 按照严格的前向和后向翻译、专家委员会审查及认知访谈，将EEAS翻译为卡纳达语版（EEAS-K）。随后对100名母语为卡纳达语的听力损失成人（以非助听器使用者为主，占92%）进行现场测试。心理测量学验证包括：通过探索性因子分析评估结构效度，使用项目反应理论（IRT）进行Rasch分析，内部一致性（Cronbach's alpha），通过视觉模拟量表（VAS）评估聚合效度，使用组内相关系数（ICC）评估重测信度，以及差异项目功能（DIF）分析。
结果： 所有10个EEAS-K条目均显示出可接受的内容效度（CVR=1.00）。以特征值和碎石图为指导的EFA初步支持单维结构，单因子解释32.7%的方差。Rasch分析支持基本单维性（第一残差特征值=1.90）。10个条目中有9个显示出可接受的infit MNSQ值（0.64-1.34）；Q8（电话）显示出升高的infit（1.92）和outfit（1.83）值，提示存在失拟，这可能反映了该人群中技术介导交流的独特且多维的认知需求。个体-项目匹配度保持在可接受的临床范围内，尽管条目对平均个体能力而言略为容易（个体均值=0.49 logits）。EEAS-K显示出极好的内部一致性（α=0.886），与VAS具有中度至强聚合效度（r=0.611），以及极好的重测信度（ICC=0.91）。DIF分析发现Q7存在显著的性别DIF，Q7和Q8存在年龄DIF，提示在这些人口学特征下，这些特定条目的原始分数应谨慎解释。未发现听力损失严重程度存在显著DIF。
结论： EEAS-K是评估卡纳达语听力损失成人聆听努力的可靠且有效的工具。Wright图显示个体-项目匹配度适当，双方法心理测量学方法提供了令人满意的测量证据，支持临床和研究使用。

英文摘要

INTRODUCTION: The Extended Effort Assessment Scale (EEAS) is a recently developed questionnaire for measuring listening effort, but a validated version for Kannada speakers is lacking. This study aimed to translate, culturally adapt, and psychometrically validate the EEAS for the Kannada-speaking adults with hearing loss.
METHOD: The EEAS was translated into Kannada (EEAS-K) following rigorous forward and back translation, expert committee review and cognitive debriefing. The final EEAS-K was then field-tested with 100 native Kannada-speaking adults with hearing loss (predominantly non-hearing aid users, 92%). Psychometric validation included assessing construct validity via exploratory factor analysis, Rasch analysis using item response theory (IRT), internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha), convergent validity via a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), test-retest reliability with an Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Differential Item Functioning (DIF).
RESULTS: All 10 EEAS-K items demonstrated acceptable content validity (CVR = 1.00). EFA, guided by eigenvalues and the scree plot, provided initial support for a unidimensional structure, with a single factor accounting for 32.7% of the variance. Rasch analysis supported essential unidimensionality (first residual eigenvalue = 1.90). Nine of 10 items showed acceptable infit MNSQ values (0.64-1.34); Q8 (telephone) showed elevated infit (1.92) and outfit (1.83) values, indicating misfit, which may reflect the unique and multidimensional cognitive demands of technology-mediated communication in this population. Person-item targeting remained within acceptable clinical limits, though items were slightly easier for the average person's ability (person mean = 0.49 logits). The EEAS-K demonstrated excellent internal consistency (α = 0.886), moderate to strong convergent validity with the VAS (r = 0.611), and excellent test-reliability (ICC = 0.91). DIF analysis identified significant gender-based DIF for Q7 and age-based DIF for Q7 and Q8, suggesting raw scores for these specific items should be interpreted with caution across these demographics. No significant DIF was found for hearing-loss-severity.
CONCLUSION: The EEAS-K is a reliable and valid tool for assessing listening effort in Kannada-speaking adults with hearing loss. The Wright map demonstrates adequate person-item targeting, and the dual-method psychometric approach provides satisfactory measurement evidence supporting clinical and research use.