Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42270828›Full record

ArticleJournal of patient-reported outcomes2026

Cross-cultural validation of the Dutch Vertigo Symptom Scale - Short Form: dimensionality, reliability and cultural differences in symptom reporting.

Anisa S Y Noordzij, Berend Terluin, Johannes C van der Wouden, Henriëtte E van der Horst, Rosie Essery, Lucy Yardley, Otto R Maarsingh, Vincent A van Vugt

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of patient-reported outcomes, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Anisa S Y NoordzijDepartment of General Practice, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, de Boelelaan 1117, Room J2-129, AMC, Amsterdam, WC, 1100, Netherlands.
Berend TerluinDepartment of General Practice, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, de Boelelaan 1117, Room J2-129, AMC, Amsterdam, WC, 1100, Netherlands.
Johannes C van der WoudenDepartment of General Practice, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, de Boelelaan 1117, Room J2-129, AMC, Amsterdam, WC, 1100, Netherlands.
Henriëtte E van der HorstDepartment of General Practice, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, de Boelelaan 1117, Room J2-129, AMC, Amsterdam, WC, 1100, Netherlands.
Rosie EsseryPrimary Care Research Centre, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Lucy YardleyDepartment of Psychology, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Otto R MaarsinghDepartment of General Practice, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, de Boelelaan 1117, Room J2-129, AMC, Amsterdam, WC, 1100, Netherlands.
Vincent A van VugtDepartment of General Practice, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, de Boelelaan 1117, Room J2-129, AMC, Amsterdam, WC, 1100, Netherlands. v.vanvugt@amsterdamumc.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2746-4820

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Vertigo Symptom Scale - Short Form (VSS-SF) is a widely used questionnaire to measure vestibular symptoms such as dizziness and vertigo. Most cross-cultural validations focus only on translation and basic psychometrics, providing limited insight into cross-national comparability. This study aimed to (1) develop and validate a Dutch version of the VSS-SF, and (2) provide novel insights into cross-cultural differences in symptom reporting and the methodological robustness of the scale. METHODOLOGY: Following international guidelines, we translated and linguistically validated the Dutch VSS-SF. We then compared its dimensional structure, reliability, and differential item functioning (DIF) with the original British version, using bifactor modeling to test essential unidimensionality. We used data from patients aged 50 years and older with chronic vestibular symptoms who participated in British (n = 296) and Dutch (n = 322) randomized controlled trials.

resultsThe Dutch version was well understood. Psychometric evaluation supported essential unidimensionality in both versions (structural coefficient bias < 15%). Reliability was excellent (omega-total 0.920 Dutch; 0.956 British). DIF analysis revealed cultural differences: Dutch patients were less likely to report nausea/vomiting but more likely to report unsteadiness, even at the same symptom level. However, these differences had negligible impact on total scores.

conclusionsThe Dutch VSS-SF is valid and reliable, with scores directly comparable to the British version. Beyond translation, this study shows how advanced psychometric methods reveal both the robustness of the VSS-SF and subtle cultural differences in symptom perception, strengthening its use in multinational research and clinical practice.

Indexed as

Cross-Cultural ComparisonVertigoAgedDizzinessFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNetherlandsPsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited KingdomCross-cultural validationDizzinessGeneral practicePrimary careTranslation vertigo symptom - scale short form

Identifiers

PMID42270828
PMCPMC13481963

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.