The DOI matches its Crossref record.
A Study of the Test-retest Reliability of Ten Olfactory Tests
Abstract
Ten tests of olfactory function (including tests of odor identification, detection, discrimination, memory, and suprathreshold odor intensity and pleasantness perception) were administered on two test occasions to 57 subjects ranging in age from 18 to 83 years. The stability of the average test scores was determined across the two test sessions for 14 measures derived from these 10 tests and for subcomponents of the Japanese T&T olfactometer threshold test. In addition, the test-retest reliability (Pearson r) of each test measure was established. With the exception of a response bias measure, the average test scores did not differ significantly across the two test sessions. Statistically, the reliability coefficients of the primary test measures fell into three general classes bound by the following r values: 0.43-0.53; 0.67-0.71; 0.76-0.90. Detection threshold values were more reliable than recognition threshold values; those based upon a single ascending presentation series were much less reliable than those based upon a staircase procedure. The relationship between test length and reliability was examined for several of the tests and mathematically modeled. For example, within the staircase series incorporating the odorant phenyl ethyl alcohol, reliability was related (R2 = 0.984) to the number of reversals included in the threshold estimate by a function derived from the Spearman-Brown formula; namely, reliability = 0.455* # reversals/[1 + 0.455 (# reversals - 1)]. Reversal location, per se, had little influence on reliability. Overall, this study suggests that (i) considerable variation is present in the reliability of olfactory tests, (ii) reliability is a function of test length, and (iii) caution is warranted in comparing results from nominally different olfactory tests in applied settings since the findings may, in some instances, simply reflect the differential reliability of the tests.
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
Cited by
Hummel, T., Sekinger, B., Wolf, S. R., Pauli, E., & Kobal, G. (1997) · Chemical Senses · doi:10.1093/chemse/22.1.39 · Cited by 2,501
Olfactory dysfunction in Parkinson disease
Doty, R. L. (2012) · Nature Reviews Neurology · doi:10.1038/nrneurol.2012.80 · Cited by 737
Self-citationEffects of olfactory training in patients with olfactory loss
Hummel, T., Rissom, K., Reden, J., Hähner, A., Weidenbecher, M., & Hüttenbrink, K. (2009) · The Laryngoscope · doi:10.1002/lary.20101 · Cited by 622
Olfaction in Parkinson's disease and related disorders
Doty, R. L. (2012) · Neurobiology of Disease · doi:10.1016/j.nbd.2011.10.026 · Cited by 431
Self-citationOlfactory Dysfunction in Schizophrenia A Qualitative and Quantitative Review
Moberg, P. (1999) · Neuropsychopharmacology · doi:10.1016/s0893-133x(99)00019-6 · Cited by 317
Metadata
- Authors
- Doty, R. L., McKeown, D. A., Lee, W. W., & Shaman, P.
- Venue
- Chemical Senses
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1995
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 645-656
- ISSN
- 0379-864X (ISSN-L)
- 1464-3553
- OpenAlex
- W2126271049
- Cited by
- 331
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 2.56
- 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: A Study of the Test-retest Reliability of Ten Olfactory Tests. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/chemse/20.6.645
- The paper
- Doty, R. L., McKeown, D. A., Lee, W. W., & Shaman, P. (1995). A Study of the Test-retest Reliability of Ten Olfactory Tests. Chemical Senses. https://doi.org/10.1093/chemse/20.6.645
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.