Objectives: To develop and adapt the Arabic version of Nijmegen questionnaire (NQ) for assessment of hyperventilation and to determine the prevalence of hyperventilation in dizzy patients. Methods: The adapted NQ was translated following cross-cultural adaptation guidelines which includes forward and backward translation, Expert committee review, pretesting and final version of NQ. The adapted Arabic NQ was completed by 100 normal controls (control group) and 50 patients with hyperventilation symptoms (hyperventilation group) then the Arabic NQ was administered to 100 dizzy patients (dizzy group). Patients with disturbed consciousness and severe mental health disorders were excluded. Validity and reliability of the questionnaire were examined. Reliability included internal consistency and test–retest reliability. The validation of the questionnaire including content and construct validity was performed. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to determine the possible cutoff points. The prevalence of hyperventilation in dizzy patients was determined. Results: The Arabic NQ showed good internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.819 for controls and Cronbach's alpha = 0.920 for hyperventilation group). Test-retest correlation for repeatability was high (r = 0.987 among controls, and r = 0.927 among cases). Construct validity showed high negative correlations between the total score of the questionnaire and the partial pressure of carbon dioxide (PCO2) outcome (r = –0.916, p <.001). Twenty-eight percent of patients in the dizzy group give positive NQ score. Conclusion: This study showed that the adapted Arabic version of NQ is a valid and reliable questionnaire for the assessment of hyperventilation in Egyptian adults and the most sensitive cutoff point for diagnosing hyperventilation was (26.5). The prevalence of hyperventilation in dizzy patients was 28%

Talaat, H. S., et al. (2019). "Arabization of Nijmegen questionnaire and study of the prevalence of hyperventilation in dizzy patients." Hearing, Balance & Communication 17(2): 182.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/21695717.2019.1590989