4.4 Article

Psychometric validation of the Rhinitis Control Assessment Test: a brief patient-completed instrument for evaluating rhinitis symptom control

Journal

ANNALS OF ALLERGY ASTHMA & IMMUNOLOGY
Volume 104, Issue 2, Pages 118-124

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.anai.2009.11.063

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. GlaxoSmithKline [FFU 108675]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Allergic rhinitis is common, but a validated tool for comprehensive assessment of disease control is not available. Objective: To develop a simple patient-completed instrument (the Rhinitis Control Assessment Test [RCAT]) to help detect problems with control of rhinitis symptoms. Methods: During a visit to an allergy specialist, 410 patients with allergic rhinitis completed a Total Nasal Symptom Score (TNSS) assessment and the 26-item developmental RCAT. Physicians also completed a global assessment of rhinitis symptom control for each patient. Results: Stepwise regression methods identified 6 items from the developmental RCAT (frequency of nasal congestion, sneezing, and watery eyes; sleep interference; activity avoidance; and self-assessed control) that were most predictive of the allergist's global rating of rhinitis symptom control. A summated rating scale from these 6 items showed good convergent validity (r > 0.70) with scale scores from the TNSS. The discriminant validity of the 6-item scale was demonstrated as mean RCAT scale scores differed significantly across groups of patients differing in physician-rated disease severity (F = 54.4), TNSS severity (F = 193.8), and physician-recommended change in therapy (F = 50.6) (P < .001 for all). Conclusions: The RCAT, a 6-item patient-completed instrument, has satisfactory psychometric properties and seems to be a valid tool for assessing control of allergic rhinitis. Further validation studies will provide confirmation. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2010; 104: 118-124.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available