Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-g4j75 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-06T05:09:16.163Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A review of ENT consultant postal questionnaires

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 March 2006

N Ramphul
Affiliation:
Department of Ear, Nose, Throat, Head and Neck Surgery, Mid-Western Regional Hospital, Limerick, Republic of Ireland.
J Saunders
Affiliation:
Statistical Consulting Unit, Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Limerick, Limerick, Republic of Ireland.
I Ahmed
Affiliation:
Department of Ear, Nose, Throat, Head and Neck Surgery, Mid-Western Regional Hospital, Limerick, Republic of Ireland.
J E Fenton
Affiliation:
Department of Ear, Nose, Throat, Head and Neck Surgery, Mid-Western Regional Hospital, Limerick, Republic of Ireland.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

In recent years, there appears to have been an increase in the number of postal questionnaires being received by ENT consultants. Questionnaires with unsound methodology waste the time of those who send and receive them, as inferences cannot be made from their results. In this study, a review was performed on a sample of 19 questionnaire studies published in two ENT journals between January 1998 and December 2002. Each study was given a 30-point score, based on the quality of its methodology. The average score assigned to each study was 32 per cent, suggesting that the quality of methodology was generally poor. These results should serve as a warning to those embarking on and those interpreting research of this kind.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© 2005 Royal Society of Medicine Press