Skip to content

Tinnitus Questionnaires Compared: THI, TFI, TQ, TRQ, Mini-TQ and More

What each tinnitus questionnaire measures, how it is scored, its severity bands and the change that counts: THI, TFI, TQ, Mini-TQ, TRQ, VAS and ESIT-SQ.

By Tinnitus Clarified TeamPublished 11 min read

Key takeaways

  • A 2016 review of 228 tinnitus treatment studies found 78 different primary outcome instruments. The Tinnitus Handicap Inventory was the most used, and the THI and TFI remain the standard questionnaires in trials.
  • The questionnaires are not interchangeable: a 2026 analysis found 83 distinct symptoms across eight of them, 41 asked about by only one, and even the closest pair, the TFI and THI, overlapped only weakly.
  • Meaningful change differs by scale: about 11 points on the THI and 9 on the TFI in a 2025 study, against the TFI developers' preliminary 13, and 5 points on the Tinnitus Questionnaire.
  • In a 2021 study of people given the same treatment, the THI's threshold classed 38% as responders and the TFI's 19%, so responder rates from different questionnaires cannot be lined up.
  • The Tinnitus Clarified impact self-check uses 15 original questions and has not been validated. It helps describe tinnitus before an appointment; it is not a THI or TFI score.

Tinnitus questionnaires score the burden tinnitus places on daily life, mostly distress and disruption rather than the sound, and they are not interchangeable: the THI and TFI are the trial standards, and the TQ leads in German-speaking countries.

With no scan or blood test for tinnitus, clinics and trials rely on what people report. How tinnitus is measured covers the THI and TFI in depth; this page is the wider map. Entries with no threshold for meaningful change have none in the published sources behind them.

Why there are so many questionnaires

A 2016 systematic review of 228 tinnitus treatment studies published from 2006 to 2015 found 78 different primary outcome instruments, 24 of them patient-reported tools. The Tinnitus Handicap Inventory was the most used, chosen as a primary outcome 77 times, and one study in ten did not clearly say which instrument it had used.

A 2026 analysis broke the 199 items of eight tinnitus-burden questionnaires into 83 distinct symptoms. Of those, 41 appeared in only one questionnaire, and none appeared in all eight. The closest pair, the TFI and THI, still overlapped only weakly, with a Jaccard index of 0.35. The authors concluded that the questionnaires should not be assumed to be interchangeable, and noted that none of the eight asks about dizziness or hyperacusis. They added that studies seldom justify their choice of questionnaire; legacy data, region, language and copyright access may play a part.

Their totals do move together: in a 2012 international analysis of 1,318 patients, the questionnaires studied correlated at around 0.8. They can still disagree about who improved.

Tinnitus Handicap Inventory (THI)

  • Measures: the handicap tinnitus causes in daily life, in functional, emotional and catastrophic subscales. In its development study it correlated only weakly with rated pitch and loudness.
  • Items and scoring: 25 questions answered yes, sometimes or no, each worth 0, 2 or 4 points, for a total of 0 to 100 (the THI entry has the development and grading studies).
  • Bands: 0–16 very mild, 18–36 mild, 38–56 moderate, 58–76 severe, 78–100 catastrophic (totals are always even). They follow five grades proposed by a British working group in 2001, which called the lowest slight and said that across the general population the top two should be very rare. Among people seeking treatment they need not be: 31% of participants in the 2025 study's trial scored in them.
  • Reliability: internal consistency of 0.93 in the 1996 development study. A 1998 retest study of 29 adults found that one person's score had to move 20 points or more to be a statistically significant change.
  • Meaningful change: a 2011 anchor-based study of 210 patients put it at 7 points. A 2025 multi-centre study estimated 11 points after 12 weeks (estimates ranged from 7.8 to 12), and found that people who start out more severe need a larger drop.
  • Languages: validated in Chinese, Danish, French, German, Italian and Portuguese, among others, and it performed comparably across four languages in the 2012 analysis.
  • Used for: grading impact in clinic and as a trial outcome, although it was not originally built to measure change. A shorter screening version, the THI-S, correlates with the full inventory at 0.90.

Tinnitus Functional Index (TFI)

  • Measures: severity and negative impact, and it was built specifically to detect change with treatment. Its eight subscales are intrusiveness, sense of control, cognitive interference, sleep, auditory difficulties, relaxation, quality of life and emotional distress.
  • Items and scoring: 25 items, each rated 0 to 10. The average is multiplied by 10 for a total of 0 to 100.
  • Bands: 0–17 not a problem, 18–31 small problem, 32–53 moderate problem, 54–72 big problem, 73–100 very big problem.
  • Reliability: internal consistency 0.97, test–retest 0.78, and a correlation with the THI of 0.86.
  • Meaningful change: the developers set 13 points as a preliminary criterion in 2012. The 2025 study estimated 9 points (7.3 to 9.4) and argued that 13 reflects moderate rather than minimal improvement. Earlier estimates ranged from 4.8 to 22.4 points, depending on method. In 2024, members of the development team still recommended 13 points for an individual, alongside the person's own sense of improvement.
  • Languages: by 2016 it was being translated into at least 14 languages.
  • Used for: trial outcomes and tracking in clinic; the 2024 VA/DoD guideline names it and the THI as validated measures for monitoring care, as the VA/DoD guideline in plain English explains.

Tinnitus Questionnaire (TQ)

  • Measures: tinnitus-related distress, across emotional and cognitive distress, intrusiveness, auditory perceptual difficulties, sleep disturbance and somatic complaints. It traces back to questionnaires developed in London in 1988.
  • Items and scoring: 52 statements answered true, partly true or not true, each worth 0, 1 or 2 points. The German scoring uses 40 of them, counting two twice, for a total of 0 to 84.
  • Bands: in German practice, 46 or below counts as compensated tinnitus, and 47 or above as decompensated tinnitus with high burden and relevant impairment.
  • Reliability: test–retest 0.94 for the total score in German inpatients.
  • Meaningful change: an anchor-based study of 757 patients put it at 5 points for improvement and 1 point for worsening. Some studies use a stricter 12-point threshold.
  • Languages: English original, validated in German, Dutch, French and Chinese.
  • Used for: it is the most widely used questionnaire in German-speaking areas. It is also the longest of the burden questionnaires and the most distinctive: in the 2026 analysis, 52.5% of its symptoms appeared in no other scale, including the only somatic items, such as headache.

Mini-TQ

  • Measures: the same distress as the TQ, as one total with no subscales.
  • Items and scoring: 12 TQ items chosen in 2004 for reliability and sensitivity to change, scored 0 to 24.
  • Bands: 8–12 moderate, 13–18 severe, 19–24 very severe. Lower scores count as compensated.
  • Reliability: correlation with the full TQ above 0.90, and test–retest 0.89. Treatment effects came out slightly larger on the Mini-TQ than on the full TQ.
  • Meaningful change: the development study's summary gives no threshold.
  • Versions: developed on German patients, and several short versions of the German TQ now exist, including a newer 15-item form, so check which one a study used.
  • Used for: rapid, economical assessment.

Tinnitus Reaction Questionnaire (TRQ)

  • Measures: psychological distress linked to tinnitus, in four factors: general distress, interference, severity and avoidance.
  • Items and scoring: 26 items, each scored from 0 (not at all) to 4 (almost all of the time), for a total of 0 to 104.
  • Reliability: test–retest 0.88 and internal consistency 0.96, across three samples totalling 156 people. It showed moderate to high correlations with anxiety and depression measures, from 0.58 to 0.87.
  • Bands and meaningful change: the development study's summary gives neither.
  • Languages: English, developed in Sydney, and French, where the effects of language were minor.
  • Used for: distress-focused research. In the 2016 review it was the preferred primary outcome questionnaire in Oceania, though few trials came from there; the THI led in every other region. It is one of three instruments pooled in the wait-list analysis in what happens if you do nothing.

Three less common instruments: THQ, TPFQ and TSI

  • Tinnitus Handicap Questionnaire (THQ), 1990: 27 items in three factors: the physical, emotional and social consequences of tinnitus; hearing ability; and the person's view of tinnitus. Its developers recommended scoring only the first two, because the third had low internal consistency.
  • Tinnitus Primary Function Questionnaire (TPFQ), 2014: built around the activities tinnitus most impairs: emotions, hearing, sleep and concentration. It has 20 items and a 12-item version, and it correlated with the THQ at 0.77.
  • Tinnitus Severity Index (TSI): measures the negative effects of tinnitus on life and scores from 12 to 60.

Single rating scales: VAS and NRS

Single-item scales ask for one rating of loudness, annoyance or a similar quality, on a visual analogue scale (VAS) or a numeric rating scale (NRS).

  • A 2012 analysis found VAS loudness and annoyance ratings reliable on retest, at 0.8 and 0.79, and they correlated with the TQ at up to 0.67. It put meaningful change at 10 to 15 points on its own scales, whose range the summary does not give, so the figure cannot be applied to other scales.
  • Rated loudness is not measured loudness. In 140 patients, VAS loudness tracked loudness matched in a sound booth only in people with normal hearing.
  • Loudness was the most commonly reported primary outcome domain in the 2016 review (14%), and a numeric rating scale was the most common way to measure it (8%).
  • The 2024 VA/DoD guideline suggests against psychoacoustic measures, such as loudness matching and minimum masking level, for monitoring whether management works.
  • A 2018 consensus exercise with 719 participants made loudness a core outcome only for drug trials; tinnitus intrusiveness was core for all three treatment types studied.

ESIT-SQ: a profile, not a score

The European School for Interdisciplinary Tinnitus Research Screening Questionnaire, published in 2019, is a case-history instrument rather than a severity scale. It records risk factors, medical and ear history and tinnitus characteristics, and people without tinnitus can answer it too, so researchers can compare the two groups.

  • Structure: 56 closed questions. Part A has 17 for everyone; Part B adds 22 for people who have had tinnitus lasting more than five minutes in the past year; an optional Part O has 17 more.
  • Scoring: it is not built to produce a severity total. Only some items give a measure, including one general question on the impact of tinnitus.
  • Languages: written in English, then translated into Dutch, German, Italian, Polish, Spanish and Swedish, with validated French and Portuguese versions and an Albanian translation since.
  • Used for: profiling and subgrouping people with tinnitus in research.

Same patients, different verdicts

In a 2021 study, 210 people with chronic tinnitus filled in the TQ, THI and TFI before and after a 7-day intensive treatment programme, though not everyone had complete scores on all three. The totals agreed well, with intraclass correlations of 0.72 to 0.83. But each questionnaire's own threshold for improvement (12 points on the TQ, 7 on the THI, 13 on the TFI) picked out different people: about 20% were responders on the TQ, 19% on the TFI and 38% on the THI. Agreement on who had responded was only fair to moderate.

The 2025 study found a related trap. Patients who said their tinnitus had not changed still improved by an average of 8.7 THI points and 5.9 TFI points. Scores can drift down without anyone feeling better, which is why the first check in reading a tinnitus study is whether a change was measured against a control group.

So when one trial reports a responder rate on the THI and another on the TFI, the difference may be the ruler rather than the treatment.

Which questionnaire you are likely to meet

  • Most trials and many clinics: the THI or TFI.
  • German-speaking clinics and research: the TQ or a Mini-TQ.
  • Research profiling: the ESIT-SQ.

Ask for a baseline score and the same questionnaire at follow-up, because a score on one instrument cannot be read as a score on another. Judge any change against that instrument's own threshold, and against your starting severity. What a first visit involves is set out in your first audiology appointment and how tinnitus is diagnosed.

A high score on any of these is a reason to ask for help, not a diagnosis. For treatments aimed at distress rather than the sound, see CBT for tinnitus and the treatment comparison. Some symptoms need prompt medical attention whatever a questionnaire says; the when to seek care checklist lists them.

The impact self-check is not one of these

The impact self-check on Tinnitus Clarified asks 15 original questions about concentration, sleep, mood and sense of control, each answered never, sometimes or often, and gives a total out of 30 in one of four bands. Its page states that the questions have not been through the testing that validates a clinical questionnaire. Use it to find words for how tinnitus affects you before an appointment, not as a THI or TFI score.

Frequently asked questions

What is the difference between the THI and the TFI?

Both score the impact of tinnitus from 0 to 100 with 25 items, and they correlate closely, at 0.86. The THI, from 1996, uses yes, sometimes or no answers across functional, emotional and catastrophic subscales, and was not originally built to measure change. The TFI, from 2012, rates each item from 0 to 10 across eight subscales and was designed to detect treatment effects. A 2025 study estimated that a change of about 11 points on the THI and 9 on the TFI is the smallest people notice.

Which tinnitus questionnaire is the best?

There is no single best one; it depends on the job. The TFI was built to detect change with treatment. The THI was the most used patient-reported tool in studies published between 2006 and 2015. The TQ is the most widely used questionnaire in German-speaking areas, and the Mini-TQ is a 12-item version of it. The ESIT-SQ profiles people rather than scoring severity. A 2026 analysis found the main questionnaires share little content, so none should be treated as a stand-in for another.

What do Tinnitus Handicap Inventory scores mean?

The THI runs from 0 to 100. The bands used in a 2025 study were 0 to 16 very mild, 18 to 36 mild, 38 to 56 moderate, 58 to 76 severe and 78 to 100 catastrophic. They describe how much tinnitus affects daily life, not how loud it is, and they are a starting point for a conversation with a clinician rather than a diagnosis. Scores also wobble: in one small retest study, a single person's score had to move 20 points to count as a statistically significant change.

How much does a tinnitus questionnaire score need to change to be meaningful?

It depends on the questionnaire. Published estimates are about 11 points on the THI and 9 on the TFI, from a 2025 multi-centre study, and 5 points on the Tinnitus Questionnaire. The TFI's developers used 13 points as a preliminary criterion. People who start with more severe tinnitus need a larger drop before they notice a difference, so no single number fits everyone.

Can a THI score be compared with a TFI or TQ score?

Not directly. The totals track each other, but the questionnaires ask about different symptoms and use different thresholds. In a 2021 study of people who completed all three around the same treatment programme, 38% counted as responders on the THI, 20% on the TQ and 19% on the TFI. A responder rate from a study using one questionnaire cannot be lined up against one using another.

Is the Tinnitus Impact Self-Check a validated questionnaire?

No. The Tinnitus Clarified impact self-check uses 15 original questions answered never, sometimes or often, gives a total out of 30 in one of four bands, and its page says the questions have not been through validation testing. It is a way to describe how tinnitus affects you before an appointment. A validated severity score comes from an instrument such as the THI or TFI, scored and interpreted by a clinician.

Sources

34 named sources

Show the list
  1. Hall, Haider et al., 2016Systematic review

    Systematic review of outcome domains and instruments used in clinical trials of tinnitus treatments in adults, Trials, PubMed (opens in a new tab)
  2. Engelke, Simões et al., 2026Journal article

    The 83 symptoms of tinnitus: Content overlap of commonly used scales for tinnitus burden, PLoS One, PubMed (opens in a new tab)
  3. Zeman, Koller et al., 2012Journal article

    Tinnitus assessment by means of standardized self-report questionnaires: psychometric properties of the Tinnitus Questionnaire (TQ), the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory (THI), and their short versions in an international and multi-lingual sample, Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, PubMed (opens in a new tab)
  4. Newman, Jacobson & Spitzer, 1996Journal article

    Development of the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory, Archives of Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery, PubMed (opens in a new tab)
  5. Newman, Sandridge & Jacobson, 1998Journal article

    Psychometric adequacy of the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory (THI) for evaluating treatment outcome, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, PubMed (opens in a new tab)
  6. Newman, Sandridge & Bolek, 2008Journal article

    Development and psychometric adequacy of the screening version of the tinnitus handicap inventory, Otology & Neurotology, PubMed (opens in a new tab)
  7. McCombe, Baguley et al., 2001Journal article

    Guidelines for the grading of tinnitus severity: the results of a working group commissioned by the British Association of Otolaryngologists, Head and Neck Surgeons, 1999, Clinical Otolaryngology and Allied Sciences, PubMed (opens in a new tab)
  8. Zeman, Koller et al., 2011Journal article

    Tinnitus handicap inventory for evaluating treatment effects: which changes are clinically relevant?, Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, PubMed (opens in a new tab)
  9. Engelke, Basso et al., 2025Journal article

    Estimation of Minimal Clinically Important Difference for Tinnitus Handicap Inventory and Tinnitus Functional Index, Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, PubMed (opens in a new tab)
  10. Meikle et al., 2012Journal article

    The Tinnitus Functional Index: development of a new clinical measure for chronic, intrusive tinnitus, Ear and Hearing, PubMed (opens in a new tab)
  11. Coco, Hooker et al., 2024Journal article

    The Impact of Tinnitus Severity on Work Functioning among U.S. Military Veterans with Tinnitus, Seminars in Hearing, PubMed (opens in a new tab)
  12. Henry, Griest et al., 2016Journal article

    Tinnitus Functional Index: Development, validation, outcomes research, and clinical application, Hearing Research, PubMed (opens in a new tab)
  13. Henry, Thielman et al., 2024Journal article

    Assessing Meaningful Improvement: Focus on the Tinnitus Functional Index, Ear and Hearing, PubMed (opens in a new tab)
  14. Hallam, Jakes & Hinchcliffe, 1988Journal article

    Cognitive variables in tinnitus annoyance, The British Journal of Clinical Psychology, PubMed (opens in a new tab)
  15. Hiller, Goebel & Rief, 1994Journal article

    Reliability of self-rated tinnitus distress and association with psychological symptom patterns, The British Journal of Clinical Psychology, PubMed (opens in a new tab)
  16. Brueggemann, Goebel et al., 2023Journal article

    Analysis of items on the short forms of the tinnitus questionnaire: Mini-TQ-12 and Mini-TQ-15, HNO, PubMed (opens in a new tab)
  17. Adamchic, Tass et al., 2012Journal article

    Linking the Tinnitus Questionnaire and the subjective Clinical Global Impression: which differences are clinically important?, Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, PubMed (opens in a new tab)
  18. Hiller & Goebel, 2004Journal article

    Rapid assessment of tinnitus-related psychological distress using the Mini-TQ, International Journal of Audiology, PubMed (opens in a new tab)
  19. Schecklmann, Weber et al., 2023Journal article

    Cognitive Behavioral Group Therapy for Chronic Tinnitus in a German Tertiary Clinical Real-World Setting, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, PubMed (opens in a new tab)
  20. Wilson, Henry et al., 1991Journal article

    Tinnitus reaction questionnaire: psychometric properties of a measure of distress associated with tinnitus, Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, PubMed (opens in a new tab)
  21. Meric, Pham & Chéry-Croze, 2000Journal article

    Validation assessment of a French version of the tinnitus reaction questionnaire: a comparison between data from English and French versions, Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, PubMed (opens in a new tab)
  22. Assouly, Smit et al., 2022Observational study

    Analysis of a Cochlear Implant Database: Changes in Tinnitus Prevalence and Distress After Cochlear Implantation, Trends in Hearing, PMC (opens in a new tab)
  23. Kuk, Tyler et al., 1990Journal article

    The psychometric properties of a tinnitus handicap questionnaire, Ear and Hearing, PubMed (opens in a new tab)
  24. Tyler, Ji et al., 2014Journal article

    Development and validation of the tinnitus primary function questionnaire, American Journal of Audiology, PubMed (opens in a new tab)
  25. Yazici & Cihan, 2023Journal article

    Correlation of Tinnitus Severity Index and Tinnitus Handicap Inventory with Hematological Parameters in Patients with Subjective Tinnitus, International Archives of Otorhinolaryngology, PubMed (opens in a new tab)
  26. Adamchic, Langguth et al., 2012Journal article

    Psychometric evaluation of visual analog scale for the assessment of chronic tinnitus, American Journal of Audiology, PubMed (opens in a new tab)
  27. Raj-Koziak, Gos et al., 2019Journal article

    Relationship Between Tinnitus Loudness Measure by Visual Analogue Scale and Psychoacoustic Matching of Tinnitus Loudness, Otology & Neurotology, PubMed (opens in a new tab)
  28. Hall, Smith et al., 2018Clinical trial

    The COMiT'ID Study: Developing Core Outcome Domains Sets for Clinical Trials of Sound-, Psychology-, and Pharmacology-Based Interventions for Chronic Subjective Tinnitus in Adults, Trends in Hearing, PubMed (opens in a new tab)
  29. VA/DoD Clinical Practice Guideline for the Management of Tinnitus (2024)Clinical guideline

    Provider Summary, Department of Veterans Affairs (opens in a new tab)
  30. Genitsaridi, Partyka et al., 2019Journal article

    Standardised profiling for tinnitus research: The European School for Interdisciplinary Tinnitus Research Screening Questionnaire (ESIT-SQ), Hearing Research, PubMed (opens in a new tab)
  31. Haider, Fernandes et al., 2025Journal article

    Translation and Validation of the Portuguese Version of European School for Interdisciplinary Tinnitus Research Screening Questionnaire (ESIT-SQ-PT), Audiology Research, PubMed (opens in a new tab)
  32. Guillard, Decobecq et al., 2023Journal article

    Validated French translation of the ESIT-SQ standardized tinnitus screening questionnaire, European Annals of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Diseases, PubMed (opens in a new tab)
  33. Genitsaridi, Dode et al., 2022Journal article

    An Albanian translation of a questionnaire for self-reported tinnitus assessment, International Journal of Audiology, PubMed (opens in a new tab)
  34. Boecking, Brueggemann et al., 2021Journal article

    All for One and One for All? - Examining Convergent Validity and Responsiveness of the German Versions of the Tinnitus Questionnaire (TQ), Tinnitus Handicap Inventory (THI), and Tinnitus Functional Index (TFI), Frontiers in Psychology, PubMed (opens in a new tab)

On this page