Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · J Am Acad Audiol 2022; 33(05): 248-258
DOI: 10.1055/a-1780-4002
Research Article

Psychometric Evaluation of the Hyperacusis Impact Questionnaire (HIQ) and Sound Sensitivity Symptoms Questionnaire (SSSQ) Using a Clinical Population of Adult Patients with Tinnitus Alone or Combined with Hyperacusis

Hashir Aazh 
1   Audiology Department, Royal Surrey NHS Foundation Trust, Egerton Road, Guildford, United Kingdom
2   Department of Communication Sciences & Disorders, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, Florida, United States
,
Chloe Hayes 
3   Psychometric and Measurement Lab, Biostatistics and Health Informatics Department, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neurosciences, King's College London, United Kingdom
,
Brian C.J. Moore 
4   Department of Psychology, Cambridge Hearing Group, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
,
Ali A. Danesh 
2   Department of Communication Sciences & Disorders, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, Florida, United States
,
Silia Vitoratou 
3   Psychometric and Measurement Lab, Biostatistics and Health Informatics Department, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neurosciences, King's College London, United Kingdom
› Author Affiliations Funding Silia Vitoratou and Chloe Hayes were funded or partially funded by the Biomedical Research Centre for Mental Health at the South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust and King's College London. Also, this research was partially supported via a grant to Ali A. Danesh by The Blakeley Foundation. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background Hyperacusis can be defined as an intolerance of certain everyday sounds, which are perceived as too loud or uncomfortable and which cause significant distress and impairment in the individual's day-to-day activities. It is important to assess symptoms of sound intolerance and their impact on the patient's life, so as to evaluate the need for treatment and to assess the effectiveness of treatments.

Purpose The aim was to evaluate the psychometric properties of the Hyperacusis Impact Questionnaire (HIQ), and the Sound Sensitivity Symptoms Questionnaire (SSSQ). The 8-item HIQ focuses on assessing the impact of hyperacusis on the patient, while the 5-item SSSQ is designed to assess the type and severity of sound intolerance symptoms.

Research Design This was a retrospective cross-sectional study.

Study Sample In total, 266 consecutive patients who attended a Tinnitus and Hyperacusis Therapy Clinic in the United Kingdom within a 6-month period. Fifty-five percent were female. The average age was 54 years (standard deviation = 16 years).

Data Collection and Analysis Data were collected retrospectively from the records of patients held at the audiology department. Audiological measures were pure-tone audiometry and Uncomfortable Loudness Levels (ULLs). Questionnaires administered in addition to the HIQ and SSSQ were: Tinnitus Handicap Inventory, Hyperacusis Questionnaire (HQ), and Screening for Anxiety and Depression in Tinnitus.

Results Exploratory factor analysis suggested one-factor solutions for both the HIQ and SSSQ. Multiple-causes multiple-indicators (MIMIC) models showed some small influences of gender but negligible effects of age for both the HIQ and SSSQ. Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) analysis showed no significant effects of covariates on the ROC curves. Cronbach's α was 0.93 for the HIQ, and 0.87 for the SSSQ, indicating high internal consistency. Convergent validity was supported by moderate correlations between HQ and HIQ scores and between SSSQ scores and ULLs.

Conclusion The HIQ and SSSQ are internally consistent questionnaires that can be used in clinical and research settings.

Keywords

Psychometric properties - questionnaire - hyperacusis - tinnitus

Disclaimer

Any mention of a product, service, or procedure in the Journal of the American Academy of Audiology does not constitute an endorsement of the product, service, or procedure by the American Academy of Audiology.




Publication History

Received: 17 August 2021

Accepted: 18 February 2022

Accepted Manuscript online:
23 February 2022

Article published online:
03 August 2022

© 2022. American Academy of Audiology. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Aazh H, Moore BCJ, Lammaing K, Cropley M. Tinnitus and hyperacusis therapy in a UK National Health Service audiology department: patients' evaluations of the effectiveness of treatments. Int J Audiol 2016; 55 (09) 514-522
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Adams B, Sereda M, Casey A, Byrom P, Stockdale D, Hoare DJ. A Delphi survey to determine a definition and description of hyperacusis by clinician consensus. Int J Audiol 2021; 60 (08) 607-613
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 WHO. International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). Geneva, Switzerland: The World Health Organization; 2001
    Google Scholar
  • 4 Danermark B, Cieza A, Gangé JP. et al. International classification of functioning, disability, and health core sets for hearing loss: a discussion paper and invitation. Int J Audiol 2010; 49 (04) 256-262
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Granberg S, Pronk M, Swanepoel W. et al. The ICF core sets for hearing loss project: functioning and disability from the patient perspective. Int J Audiol 2014; 53 (11) 777-786
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Khalfa S, Bruneau N, Rogé B. et al. Increased perception of loudness in autism. Hear Res 2004; 198 (1-2): 87-92
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Greenberg B, Carlos M. Psychometric properties and factor structure of a new scale to measure hyperacusis: introducing the inventory of hyperacusis symptoms. Ear Hear 2018; 39 (05) 1025-1034
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Aazh H, Danesh AA, Moore BCJ. Internal consistency and convergent validity of the inventory of hyperacusis symptoms. Ear Hear 2021; 42 (04) 917-926
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Tyler RS, Pienkowski M, Roncancio ER. et al. A review of hyperacusis and future directions: part I. Definitions and manifestations. Am J Audiol 2014; 23 (04) 402-419
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 BSA. Pure-Tone Air-Conduction and Bone-Conduction Threshold Audiometry With and Without Masking: Recommended Procedure. Reading, UK: British Society of Audiology; 2011
    Google Scholar
  • 11 Aazh H, Moore BCJ. Incidence of discomfort during pure-tone audiometry and measurement of uncomfortable loudness levels among people seeking help for tinnitus and/or hyperacusis. Am J Audiol 2017; 26 (03) 226-232
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 BSA. Recommended Procedure: Determination of Uncomfortable Loudness Levels. Reading, UK: British Society of Audiology; 2011
    Google Scholar
  • 13 Aazh H, Moore BCJ. Factors related to uncomfortable loudness levels for patients seen in a tinnitus and hyperacusis clinic. Int J Audiol 2017; 56 (10) 793-800
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Newman CW, Sandridge SA, Jacobson GP. Psychometric adequacy of the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory (THI) for evaluating treatment outcome. J Am Acad Audiol 1998; 9 (02) 153-160
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Khalfa S, Dubal S, Veuillet E, Perez-Diaz F, Jouvent R, Collet L. Psychometric normalization of a hyperacusis questionnaire. ORL J Otorhinolaryngol Relat Spec 2002; 64 (06) 436-442
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Aazh H, Moore BCJ. Usefulness of self-report questionnaires for psychological assessment of patients with tinnitus and hyperacusis and patients' views of the questionnaires. Int J Audiol 2017; 56 (07) 489-498
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, Williams JB. The PHQ-9: validity of a brief depression severity measure. J Gen Intern Med 2001; 16 (09) 606-613
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Spitzer RL, Kroenke K, Williams JB, Löwe B. A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: the GAD-7. Arch Intern Med 2006; 166 (10) 1092-1097
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Fackrell K, Fearnley C, Hoare DJ, Sereda M. Hyperacusis Questionnaire as a tool for measuring hypersensitivity to sound in a tinnitus research population. BioMed Res Int 2015; 2015: 290425
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Baguley DM, Andersson G. Factor analysis of the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory. Am J Audiol 2003; 12 (01) 31-34
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, Williams JB, Löwe B. An ultra-brief screening scale for anxiety and depression: the PHQ-4. Psychosomatics 2009; 50 (06) 613-621
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Muthén BO. Beyond SEM: general latent variable modeling. Behaviormetrika 2002; 29 (01) 81-117
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Guttman L. Some necessary conditions for common factor analysis. Psychometrika 1954; 19: 149-161
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Kaiser HF. The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educ Psychol Meas 1960; 20 (01) 141-151
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Timmerman ME, Lorenzo-Seva U. Dimensionality assessment of ordered polytomous items with parallel analysis. Psychol Methods 2011; 16 (02) 209-220
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Muthén B, Kaplan D. A comparison of some methodologies for the factor analysis of non-normal Likert variables. Br J Math Stat Psychol 1985; 38: 171-189
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Muthén B, Kaplan D. A comparison of some methodologies for the factor analysis of non-normal Likert variables: a note on the size of the model. Br J Math Stat Psychol 1992; 45: 19-30
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Hoelter J. The analysis of covariance structures. Sociol Methods Res 1983; 11: 325-344
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Hu L, Bentler P. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Modeling 1999; 6: 1-55
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Hooper D, Coughlan J, Mullen MR. Structural equation modelling: guidelines for determining model fit. J Business Res Methods. 2008; 6 (01) 53-60
    Google Scholar
  • 31 Bentler PM, Bonett D. Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychol Bull 1980; 88: 588-606
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Osborne JW, Costello AB, Kellow JT. Best practices in exploratory factor analysis. In: Osborne JW. ed. Best Practices in Quantitative Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing; 2008: 205-213
    Google Scholar
  • 33 Muthén B. A structural probit model with latent variables. J Am Stat Assoc 1979; 74: 807-811
    Google Scholar
  • 34 Joreskog K, Goldberger A. Estimation of a model with multiple indicators and multiple causes of a single latent variable. J Am Stat Assoc 1975; 70 (351) 631-639
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Woods CM, Oltmanns TF, Turkheimer E. Illustration of MIMIC-Model DIF testing with the schedule for nonadaptive and adaptive personality. J Psychopathol Behav Assess 2009; 31 (04) 320-330
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Borenstein M. (2009). Effect sizes for continuous data. The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis. H. Cooper, L. Hedges and J. Valentine (eds) New York: Russell Sage Foundation; 221-235
    Google Scholar
  • 37 Youden WJ. Index for rating diagnostic tests. Cancer 1950; 3 (01) 32-35
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Cohen J. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Meas 1960; 20 (01) 37-46
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977; 33 (01) 159-174
    Google Scholar
  • 40 Janes H, Longton G, Pepe M. Accommodating covariates in ROC analysis. Stata J 2009; 9 (01) 17-39
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Janes H, Pepe MS. Adjusting for covariates in studies of diagnostic, screening, or prognostic markers: an old concept in a new setting. Am J Epidemiol 2008; 168 (01) 89-97
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Cronbach LJ. Test reliability; its meaning and determination. Psychometrika 1947; 12 (01) 1-16
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH. Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1994
    Google Scholar
  • 44 Aazh H, Heinonen-Guzejev M, Moore BCJ. The relationship between hearing loss and insomnia for patients with tinnitus. Int J Audiol 2020; 59 (01) 68-72
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Aazh H, McFerran D, Moore BCJ. Uncomfortable loudness levels among children and adolescents seeking help for tinnitus and/or hyperacusis. Int J Audiol 2018; 57 (08) 618-623
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Akoglu H. User's guide to correlation coefficients. Turk J Emerg Med 2018; 18 (03) 91-93
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Muthen LK, Muthén B. Mplus User's Guide. 8th ed.. In: Muthén BO. ed. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén; 1998-2017
    Google Scholar
  • 48 Lorenzo-Seva U, Ferrando PJ. FACTOR: a computer program to fit the exploratory factor analysis model. Behav Res Methods 2006; 38 (01) 88-91
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 IBM. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows. 25.0 ed.. NY: IBM Corp.; Released 2017
    Google Scholar
  • 50 StataCorp. Stata Statistical Software: Release 13. TX, USA: StataCorp LP; 2013
    Google Scholar
  • 51 Cederroth CR, Lugo A, Edvall NK. et al. Association between hyperacusis and tinnitus. J Clin Med 2020; 9 (08) 2412
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Sheldrake J, Diehl PU, Schaette R. Audiometric characteristics of hyperacusis patients. Front Neurol 2015; 6: 105
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Enzler F, Fournier P, Noreña AJ. A psychoacoustic test for diagnosing hyperacusis based on ratings of natural sounds. Hear Res 2021; 400 (February): 108124
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Koops E, van Dijk P. Subcortical and cortical responses are enlarged in tinnitus patients with hyperacusis compared to those without hyperacusis. Hear Res 2021; 401 (March): 108158
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Jastreboff PJ, Jastreboff MM. Decreased sound tolerance: hyperacusis, misophonia, diplacousis, and polyacousis. Handb Clin Neurol 2015; 129: 375-387
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 56 Aazh H, Moore BCJ. Prevalence and characteristics of patients with severe hyperacusis among patients seen in a tinnitus and hyperacusis clinic. J Am Acad Audiol 2018; 29 (07) 626-633
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 57 Meeus OM, Spaepen M, Ridder DD, Heyning PH. Correlation between hyperacusis measurements in daily ENT practice. Int J Audiol 2010; 49 (01) 7-13
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar