Psychometric Properties of the European Evaluation of Vertigo Scale (EEV) for a Spanish-Speaking Population: A Validation Study

Background/Objectives: The objective of this study was to validate the Spanish version of the European Evaluation of Vertigo (EEV) and analyse its test-retest reliability, standard error of measurement (SEM), minimum detectable change (MDC), concurrent validity, and discriminant validity. Methods: A...

ver descrição completa

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autores: Montilla-Ibáñez, María Alharilla, Lomas-Vega, Rafael, López-Ruiz, María del Carmen, Díaz-Fernández, Ángeles, Ibáñez-Vera, Alfonso Javier, Peinado-Rubia, Ana Belén, Obrero, Esteban, Sedeño-Vidal, Ana
Formato: artículo
Estado:Versión publicada
Fecha de publicación:2025
País:España
Recursos:Universidad de Jaén
Repositorio:RUJA. Repositorio Institucional de la Producción Científica de la Universidad de Jaén
OAI Identifier:oai:ruja.ujaen.es:10953/6294
Acesso em linha:https://www.mdpi.com/2039-4349/15/4/84
https://hdl.handle.net/10953/6294
Access Level:acceso abierto
Palavra-chave:Dizziness
Reproducibility of results
Validation studies
Vertigo
615.8
Descrição
Resumo:Background/Objectives: The objective of this study was to validate the Spanish version of the European Evaluation of Vertigo (EEV) and analyse its test-retest reliability, standard error of measurement (SEM), minimum detectable change (MDC), concurrent validity, and discriminant validity. Methods: A cross-sectional validation study was designed. Subjects were recruited from the Otolaryngology Service of the University Hospital of Jaen. Psychometric properties of the EEV were analysed, including the concurrent validity, the SEM, and the MDC. Discriminant validity was calculated using the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Results: The EEV test-retest reliability was nearly perfect (Kappa index = 0.97). The SEM and the MDC were set at 0.56 and 1.10, respectively. Regarding the discriminant validity, the area under the curve (AUC) was 0.831 (95% CI; 0.743-0.899) for the BPPV prediction, the AUC = 0.731 (95% CI; 0.633-0.815) for the disability prediction from the ABC-16 score, and the AUC = 0.846 (95% CI; 0.760-0.911) for the disability prediction from the ABC-6 score. Furthermore, a cut-off point greater than 12 was a good predictor of disability and the fall risk measured with the ABC scale, whereas a value of 11 points was a good predictor for discriminating BPPV patients. Conclusions: The Spanish version of the EEV is a valid and reliable instrument for evaluating the clinical symptoms of vestibular syndrome. This instrument demonstrated a nearly perfect test-retest reliability, a low measurement error, and good accuracy in discriminating between patients with vestibular disorders and those with BPPV.