THI
Tinnitus Handicap Inventory (THI)
The THI (Tinnitus Handicap Inventory) is a standardized questionnaire designed to assess the impact of tinnitus on patients' quality of life. It was developed by Newman, Jacobson, and Spitzer in 1996, and it is commonly used by health professionals to quantify the psychological and emotional effects of tinnitus.
- Number of questions
- 25 questions
- Estimated duration
- 6 minutes
- Language
- English
- Original name
- Tinnitus Handicap Inventory
Preview of the 25 questions
Scoring & interpretation
Scoring
Score: 50/100
| 0 – 16 | Slight handicap: the tinnitus is only heard in a quiet environment | |
| 18 – 36 | Mild handicap: the tinnitus is easily masked by environmental sounds and forgotten during activities | |
| 38 – 56 | Moderate handicap: the tinnitus is noticed even with background noise, without noticeably affecting daily activities | ◀ 50 |
| 58 – 76 | Severe handicap: the tinnitus is almost always heard, disturbs sleep and interferes with daily activities | |
| 78 – 100 | Catastrophic handicap: associated with disturbed sleep and major disruption of daily activities | |
Functional subscale: 26/44
Items about stress, loss of concentration, sleep, and interference with work, family life and social activities.
Emotional subscale: 18/36
Items about distress, frustration, irritability, anxiety, depression and insecurity: the emotional responses to the tinnitus.
Catastrophic subscale: 6/20
Items about desperation, being unable to escape the tinnitus, believing one has a terrible disease, and a lack of control.
Total score
Slight (0 to 16)Mild (18 to 36)Moderate (38 to 56)Severe (58 to 76)Catastrophic (78 to 100)
What psychologists think
No ratings yet. Be the first to rate this questionnaire.
Clarity and comprehension
—Are the test's instructions and questions easy for patients to understand?
Clinical relevance
—Does the test measure what it's meant to measure, and is it useful in a clinical setting?
Perceived reliability of the results
—Do the results seem reliable and consistent in their interpretation?