Validation and Reliability of the Malay Version Device-Oriented Subjective Outcome Scale: A Preliminary Study

Abstract

The device-oriented subjective outcome (DOSO) was originally designed to evaluate hearing aid performance in terms of communication ease, satisfaction, and listening effort. It underwent review by a panel of eight experts from audiology and related disciplines. The Malay version of the DOSO scale was assessed for content validity, face validity, and reliability to confirm its cultural appropriateness and precision in evaluating hearing aid outcomes among Malaysian users. Fifteen items were revised to improve clarity based on the expert's feedback. Face validity testing was conducted with 33 experienced hearing aid users, and test–retest reliability was evaluated using seven participants. The content validity analysis revealed a high item-level Content Validity Index (CVI) ranging from 0.62 to 1.00, alongside a robust overall Scale-Level Content Validity Index/Average (S-CVI/Ave) of 0.90. Face validity scores (I-FVI: 0.67–1.00; S-FVI/Ave: 0.88) and a comprehension clarity score of 0.86 suggest that the tool was effectively understood. Cronbach's α values varied between 0.77 and 1.00, indicating good to excellent internal consistency. The validated Malay DOSO serves as a reliable tool for assessing hearing aid outcomes, thereby endorsing its use in both clinical and community contexts in Malaysia. Additional research involving a more diverse population is recommended to improve generalizability.

Keywords

hearing aid - questionnaire - validation - reliability

• References

• Chong, F.Y., Ali, A., Rashid, M.F.N., Wong, B.Z.J. (2025). A preliminary study on the adaptation and validity of the Malay version device oriented subjective outcome (DOSO) scale. Med Health, (1):340–352
• Cox, R.M., Alexander, G.C. (2001). Validation of the SADL questionnaire. Ear Hear,22(2):151–160
• Eremenco S.L., Cella D., Arnold B.J. (2005). A comprehensive method for the translation and cross-cultural validation of health status questionnaires. Eval Health Prof,28(2):212–232
• Fitzpatrick, R., Davey, C., Buxton, M.J., Jones, D.R. (1998). Evaluating patient-based outcome measures for use in clinical trials. Health Technol Assess,2(14):i–iv, 1–74
• Haynes, S.N., Richard, D.C.S., Kubany, E.S. (1995). Content validity in psychological assessment: a functional approach to concepts and methods. Psychol Assess,7:238–247
• Jorgensen, L.E. (2016). Verification and validation of hearing aids: opportunity not an obstacle. J Otol;11(2):57–62
• Koo, T.K., Li, M.Y. (2016). A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med,15(2):155–163
• Nevo, B. (1985). Face validity revisited. Educ Meas,22:287–293
• Quar, T.K., Ishak, W.S., Lani, A. (2018). Adapting the speech, spatial and qualities of hearing scale into Malay: a preliminary study. Speech Lang Hear,21(3):142–148
• Reid Health. (2023). Real Ear Verification: Gold Standard Hearing Aid Fitting. Accessed October 15, 2025 at: https://www.reidhealth.org/blog/real-ear-verification-gold-standard hearing-aid-fitting
• Shrout, P.E., Fleiss, J.L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull;86(2):420–428
• Streiner DL, Norman GR, Cairney J. (2015). Health measurement scales: A practical guide to their development and use. Oxford University Press.
• Stach, B.A., Ramachandran, V. (2021). Clinical audiology: An introduction. Plural Publishing.
• Weinstein, B.E. (1997). Outcome measures in the hearing aid fitting/selection process. Trends Amplif,2(4):117–137
• Yusoff, M.S.B. (2019). ABC of content validation and content validity index calculation. Educ Med J,11:49–54