The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Psychometric and Clinimetric Validity of the 20‐Item Sino‐Nasal Outcome Test (Snot‐20)
Abstract
A valid measure of rhinosinusitis health status and quality of life is required for the complete assessment of treatment effectiveness. The purpose of this study was to analyze the psychometric and clinimetric validity of the 20‐Item Sino‐Nasal Outcome Test (SNOT‐20), a disease‐specific, health‐related quality‐of‐life measure for rhinosinusitis. The SNOT‐20 is a modification of the 31‐Item Rhinosinusitis Outcome Measure, and it contains 20 nose, sinus, and general items. To complete the instrument, patients indicate how much they are affected in each area and identify the 5 most important items. The SNOT‐20 was completed by 102, 72, and 46 patients at the initial visit and at 6 months and 1 year after treatment commencement, respectively. Cronbach's α was 0.9; test‐retest scores were highly correlated (r = 0.9). Patients who were more affected had greater SNOT‐20 scores (P < 0.002), and patients who had improved had greater change scores (P < 0.04). Items identified as important had greater scores (P < 0.0001) and showed greater change scores (P < 0.0002). The SNOT‐20 is a valid outcome measure for patients with rhinosinusitis; it describes the health burden and is sensitive to clinical change.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Coefficient Alpha and the Internal Structure of Tests
Cronbach, L. J. (1951) · Psychometrika · doi:10.1007/bf02310555 · Cited by 43,931
The MOS 36-ltem Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): I. Conceptual Framework and Item Selection
Ware, J. E., & Sherbourne, C. D. (1992) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/00005650-199206000-00002 · Cited by 30,033
Cited by
Rhinosinusitis: Establishing definitions for clinical research and patient care
Meltzer, E. O., Hamilos, D. L., Hadley, J. A., Lanza, D. C., Marple, B. F., Nicklas, R. A., Bachert, C., Baraniuk, J., Baroody, F. M., Benninger, M. S., et al. (2004) · Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology · doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2004.09.029 · Cited by 854
Self-citationStewart, M. G., Smith, T. L., Weaver, E. M., Witsell, D. L., Yueh, B., Hannley, M. T., Johnson, J. T., & The Nose Study Investigators (2004) · Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.otohns.2003.12.004 · Cited by 514
Rowe, S. M., Heltshe, S. L., Gonska, T., Donaldson, S. H., Borowitz, D., Gelfond, D., Sagel, S. D., Khan, U., Mayer-Hamblett, N., Van Dalfsen, J. M., et al. (2014) · American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine · doi:10.1164/rccm.201404-0703oc · Cited by 492
Abreu, N. A., Nagalingam, N. A., Song, Y., Roediger, F. C., Pletcher, S. D., Goldberg, A. N., & Lynch, S. V. (2012) · Science Translational Medicine · doi:10.1126/scitranslmed.3003783 · Cited by 415
EAACI Position Paper on Rhinosinusitis and Nasal Polyps Executive Summary
Fokkens, W., Lund, V., Bachert, C., Clement, P., Helllings, P., Holmstrom, M., Jones, N., Kalogjera, L., Kennedy, D., Kowalski, M., et al. (2005) · Allergy · doi:10.1111/j.1398-9995.2005.00830.x · Cited by 384
Metadata
- Authors
- Piccirillo, J. F., Merritt, M. G., & Richards, M. L.
- Venue
- Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2002-01
- Volume
- 126
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 41-47
- ISSN
- 0161-6439 (ISSN-L)
- 0194-5998
- 1097-6817
- OpenAlex
- W2094866624
- Cited by
- 898
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 11.15
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Psychometric and Clinimetric Validity of the 20‐Item Sino‐Nasal Outcome Test (Snot‐20). https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1067/mhn.2002.121022
- The paper
- Piccirillo, J. F., Merritt, M. G., & Richards, M. L. (2002). Psychometric and Clinimetric Validity of the 20‐Item Sino‐Nasal Outcome Test (Snot‐20). Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1067/mhn.2002.121022
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
