Validity and Reliability Testing of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) Taste and Smell Protocol
2014
- 1,553Usage
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Usage1,553
- Downloads1,210
- 1,210
- Abstract Views343
Article Description
The NHANES 2011–2014 protocol includes a taste and smell questionnaire (CSQ) in the home interview followed by brief olfactory and taste assessment in mobile exam centers. The CSQ asks self-reported taste and smell ability, and selected symptoms, comorbidities, and treatment for chemosensory disorders. In the taste assessment, participants rate intensities of 1 M NaCl and 1mM quinine hydrochloride applied to the tongue tip and these plus 0.32M NaCl sampled with the whole mouth. Smell function is assessed with two 4-item, scratch-and-sniff tests (Pocket TestsTM (PT), Sensonics, Inc.) to classify normosmia and olfactory dysfunction from microsmia to anosmia. We examined the NHANES protocol test-retest reliability and compared the PT to an Olfactometer identification task. Seventy-seven adults (mean age=39, range: 18-87 years) were tested at baseline and 2.5 weeks. Taste intraclass correlations (one-way random, single measures) ranged from 0.47-0.71 (moderate to substantial agreement). Classification of olfactory function agreed for 97% of participants across two PT trials (κ =0.65). Compared to the Olfactometer at each testing session, the PT averaged 50% sensitivity (true positive rate) and 100% specificity (true negative rate) to identify olfactory dysfunction. All adults incorrectly classified by PT were mild microsmics. If detecting moderate to severe dysfunction, the PT averaged 100% sensitivity and 97% specificity. A subsample (50 adults) completed testing at 6.5 months to test the CSQ stability. The six CSQ items pertaining to chemosensory impairment had moderate to near perfect agreement (ICC single measures, 0.57-0.94). These findings indicate that the NHANES chemosensory protocol has good test-retest reliability and is highly sensitive in identifying moderate to severe olfactory dysfunction.
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know