San diego quick assessment reliability

SAS 9. Most of this agreement involved correct identification of an odorant at both visits, with few participants incorrectly identifying an odorant at both visits. Percent agreement between visits 1 and 2 for correct identification of each odorant included in the SDOIT. Shading indicates types of agreement present correct identification at both visits vs. Thus, the mean difference between scores at visit 2 and visit 1 was 0. All 76 participants classified as unimpaired at visit 1 remained unimpaired at visit 2, whereas 4 of 13 impaired participants improved to unimpaired at visit 2.

The size of the bubbles corresponds to the number of participants in each category, shown to the lower right of the bubble. Next, we examined whether changes in health status could explain any observed changes in SDOIT olfaction scores. These changes in upper respiratory symptoms could not explain all fluctuations in olfactory score; most differences in score occurred among participants reporting no change in upper respiratory symptoms Table 1.

Smoking status did not change for any participant between the 2 visits. One of the 9 participants reporting a change in medications had one of the largest differences in olfactory scores. Of the 24 participants who had a change in SDOIT score of one or more units, one-third reported a corresponding change in the appropriate direction for at least one of the health conditions reported on the questionnaire Table 1. Of the remaining 16 with a change in SDOIT score, 4 participants reported upper respiratory problems at both visits, making it difficult to determine whether changes in olfactory function as measured by the SDOIT correlated with health.

The mean B-SIT score at visit 1 was Identification of the odorant cinnamon varied by test. The SDOIT showed good test—retest reliability when administered to adults on 2 different occasions separated by an average of 3 weeks. We did not exclude participants with nasal symptoms from participating although olfactory function would likely fluctuate because we wanted to be able to extend these results to epidemiological studies in the general population.

In such studies, subjects are not excluded from testing because of acute nasal symptoms, but adjustments are made during the analytic process to control for the potential confounding. It is likely that the test's reliability in highly selected subjects as might be included in experimental or small clinical studies is underestimated. Among participants whose SDOIT score did change between visits, half either reported a change in health consistent with the direction of change in score or reported upper respiratory symptoms at both visits.

For this latter group, it is difficult to determine whether the change in SDOIT score corresponds to health because people experiencing sinus problems may have fluctuations in olfactory congestion, and this study did not have a measure of severity of symptoms.

Still, adjusting for changes in health, including nasal symptoms and medication use, may be advisable when conducting longitudinal studies of olfactory functioning. We found no significant impact of testing conditions ambient temperature and humidity on changes in SDOIT scores. Because not all participants with a change in SDOIT score reported either a consistent change in health or nasal symptoms at both visits, some of the small variability observed in the SDOIT score is likely true test variability.

Among participants with shifts in SDOIT score upon repeat testing, more increases in score were observed than decreases in score. Although it is possible that this tendency reflects some learning effects over the 3 weeks separating the visits, it is unlikely given the administration protocol.

Within a single administration of the SDOIT, participants have a second opportunity to identify any odorants initially misidentified. The score is based on the total number correctly identified e. The SDOIT was designed to overcome some of the naming difficulties older adults may experience and to minimize the misclassification due to unfamiliar odorants.

For example, a person may not have used Play-Doh and therefore not know the name of the odor but can correctly identify it once the name is known. This learning would occur within the first test. It is unlikely that a participant would be unable to learn the correct identification between these 2 presentations but be able to learn it within the next 3 weeks.

In addition, the picture board used in the test contains 20 possible odorants, and participants do not know in advance that the same 8 odorants will be used each time, further minimizing potential learning effects for repeat measures.

With longer follow-up periods, as in the years between examination phases in epidemiological studies, the potential impact of learning is diminished. Thus, the SDOIT is a good candidate for use in longitudinal studies examining change in olfactory impairment, for example, incidence of olfactory impairment.

However, because the SDOIT exhibited some test variability, sensitivity analyses that exclude those who change impairment categories due to a one-unit shift in score may be warranted.

Although 9 participants did change SDOIT scores by more than one unit, only 3 of the 9 also changed impairment status categories. The number of participants classified as olfactory impaired in this study was relatively small. However, the resulting prevalence of impairment observed in this sample is similar to what has been reported in populations, for the same age range Murphy et al.

Therefore, estimates of test—retest reliability from this study should be fairly representative of test characteristics when the SDOIT is used in a population of middle-aged and older adults. In order to feasibly and efficiently measure health outcomes, large-scale epidemiological studies require standardized tools that are rapid, are relatively inexpensive, and present minimal burden to participants.

There is a standardized protocol for the SDOIT, the test only takes an average of 15 min to administer, and the cost is reasonably low. This test is also easy to maintain. Further, the SDOIT is generally well received by participants and considered an enjoyable experience.

Thus, the SDOIT would be a suitable choice for measuring olfactory impairment in epidemiological studies. Because names for unfamiliar odors can be learned by the second presentation and the picture board can assist with naming difficulties as might be experienced with mild cognitive impairment, the SDOIT might be preferred in some studies.

The B-SIT is quick, minimally burdensome to participants, and easily portable and has been shown to have good test—retest reliability Doty et al. However, the cost of the B-SIT may be prohibitive for many large studies. These results suggest that little if any variation in prevalence estimates in middle-aged and older adults would be due to differences in measurement methods.

Differences in the strength of the odorant released may explain the discrepancies in cinnamon identification. However, in epidemiological studies, the purpose of these tests is often to categorize participants as impaired or abnormal rather than to define gradations of olfactory functioning. This study showed that the SDOIT has desirable test—retest reliability characteristics for the individual odorants, the summary score, and the classification of impairment.

Changes in participant health status, including nasal symptoms and medication use, may explain some but not all of the total variability in SDOIT score. Simple measures of olfactory impairment may be useful tools in epidemiological studies. The San Diego Quick Assessment is certainly one of those tools. These lists range from pre-primer and primer through eleventh grade.

The premise behind the San Diego Quick Assessment is surprisingly simple. Each grade level list contains 10 words in isolation. You typically begin testing your students two or three levels below their actual grade level. To assess a student, you show them the list of 10 words and keep track of how many they read correctly, allowing no more than seconds per word.

With this time restriction, it should take less than one minute per word list to administer. If they make zero or one error, that would be considered their independent reading grade level. You would then continue to test them at the next level to see if their independent level is any higher. Once a student makes 2 errors in a list, that grade level would be considered their instructional level, and you would stop testing. You may be wondering about the difference between independent and instructional levels and why you would need to know those.

They are also able to comprehend the material on their own. It is helpful to know both levels so that you can choose appropriate reading materials. For example, if a student will be reading a novel to participate in a book club with their peers, you would want to choose material at their independent reading level. If you will be working with a small guided reading group on a particular skill, or on something content specific, an instructional level might be appropriate, as you would be able to provide the needed support to ensure comprehension.

While the San Diego Quick Assessment is a useful tool, it is important to note that it should not be used in isolation or relied on as your only source of determining a reading level. It is particularly useful with a new student, or with all of your students at the beginning of a school year, when you do not know anything about their reading ability.

The San Diego Quick Assessment can also be effective at seeing patterns with decoding errors. If you would like a referral to a qualified professional or if you have questions about dyslexia or language-learning disorders, give me a call at ext.

Sandie is a speech-language pathologist with more than 30 years of experience in the private practice sector. Tests Therapy Online Therapy Comparison. Professional Therapy. Basic Therapy. Our Therapists Testimonials Results. Welcome to Lexercise!