Author
Listed:
- Annelin Espetvedt
- Siri Wiig
- Kai Victor Myrnes-Hansen
- Daniel Adrian Lungu
Abstract
Background: The parosmia, phantosmia, and anosmia test (PARPHAIT) has previously been developed as a tool for capturing quantitative and qualitative symptoms of olfactory dysfunction. Its content validity was evaluated in a patient sample, from a statistical point of view through an exploratory factor analysis, and now in a panel of experts. Based on these evaluations, we present the most recent version. The aim of this study was to evaluate the content of the novel PARPHAIT in an expert panel. Methods: This was a qualitative interview study with experts in the field of olfaction. The study was done in an international research community on olfactory dysfunction. Thirteen participants (mean age 49.7, 53.8% men) with expertise in the field of smell were interviewed about PARPHAIT’s content, format, and applicability. Participants were selected based on their experience in the field of smell and invited to a digital interview. Results: Suggested improvements of PARPHAIT were provided and evaluated. Alterations were done to the formulation of items and introductory text (i.e., instructions and definitions), as well as aspects covered, and the structure and design of the questionnaire. Conclusions: PARPHAIT was considered a clear, user-friendly tool suitable for a clinical assessment context. Improvements were made based on experts’ feedback, leading to a final version of the tool. However, some aspects of PARPHAIT remain open for consideration (e.g., response and scoring design) and more work remains to reach consensus on how the PARPHAIT best can capture symptoms of olfactory dysfunction.
Suggested Citation
Annelin Espetvedt & Siri Wiig & Kai Victor Myrnes-Hansen & Daniel Adrian Lungu, 2025.
"Experts’ content validation of the parosmia, phantosmia, and anosmia test (PARPHAIT): A qualitative study,"
PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 20(8), pages 1-14, August.
Handle:
RePEc:plo:pone00:0329108
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0329108
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0329108. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.