Bayesian two-sample t-test.

While measures to detect psychophysical olfactory ability are a crucial part of clinicians’ assessment of potential olfactory loss, it gives no indication of how olfaction is experienced by the patient and these different aspects often deviate substantially. To ensure quality and reproducibility of subjectively reported olfactory experience and significance, the Importance of Olfaction Questionnaire (IO-Q) was introduced around a decade ago, and while initial validations have produced promising results, important aspects remain nearly unexamined. For example, the test-retest reliability has rarely been examined and the difference of online versus pen-and-paper administration remains unexplored. Here, we translated IO-Q to Danish and examined its validity, test-retest reliability and mode of administration. A cohort of 179 younger, Danish participants with a high level of English proficiency took the test twice with varying time in-between. The first test was taken digitally and in English, while the second was taken using pen-and-paper and in Danish. The distribution of scores and the relationship between the IO-Q and subscale scores were nearly identical between tests, indicating little to no influence of language/test modality in the sampled population. The internal consistency was comparable to previously published results. Likewise, an acceptable test-retest reliability was observed for the full IO-Q and slightly lower for subscales. No significant effect of time was found across several weeks. In conclusion, the IO-Q performed satisfactorily in all examinations and could therefore serve as a valuable clinical measure of subjective olfactory experience, and its Danish translation shows highly similar characteristics to the original, English version.