Examination of the Validity of Auditory Traits and Tests

Flamme, Gregory A.

doi:10.1177/108471380100500303

Cited by 14 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As much as 32% of the variance in the outcome measures included in this study were directly or interactively associated with labeling effects. This amount of irrelevant variance is consistent with prior work (Flamme, 2001). In the context of studies comparing the efficacy or effectiveness of different hearing aids, the variance that is irrelevant to the central research question (e.g., is one hearing aid condition better than another) can substantially bias the results of the study and cause investigators to incorrectly conclude that a difference between hearing aid conditions exists.…”

Section: Inferential Resultssupporting

confidence: 80%

Impact of Digital Labeling on Outcome Measures

et al. 2003

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Inferential Resultssupporting

confidence: 80%

Impact of Digital Labeling on Outcome Measures

et al. 2003

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A strong interrelationship was found between the items on the disabilities section (.900) and between the items on the handicaps section (.800). For Section I, these results compare well with those previously reported (.93) (Flamme, 2001). Based on these measures, it can be said with confidence that each section of this measure examines a specific construct and that the questions within each section are similar in type as they relate to that construct.…”

Section: Internal Consistency Reliabilitysupporting

confidence: 91%

Validity, Internal Consistency, and Test/Retest Reliability of a Localization Disabilities and Handicaps Questionnaire

Ruscetta¹,

Palmer²,

Durrant³

et al. 2005

J Am Acad Audiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Psychometric evaluations were performed on a self-perceived localization disabilities and handicaps questionnaire. Twenty individuals with normal hearing bilaterally, twenty with profound unilateral hearing impairment (UHI), and ten with any degree of bilateral hearing impairment participated. Each subject completed the questionnaire. Comparisons of the responses of the subjects with normal hearing and those with UHI revealed significant differences among the groups for both disabilities and handicaps, establishing construct validity. Cronbach's Alpha correlational analyses of the responses of all subjects with hearing impairment revealed correlations of .900 (disabilities) and .800 (handicaps), establishing internal consistency. Each participant with hearing impairment was asked to complete the questionnaire again after three weeks. Pearson's correlational analyses of the responses at time one versus time two revealed correlations of .900 (disabilities) and .700 (handicaps), establishing test/retest reliability. This questionnaire is an appropriate tool for investigating the self-perceived localization disabilities and handicaps of individuals with hearing impairment.

show abstract

“…Internal consistency reliability was assessed and a strong interrelationship was found between the items for section I and section II. Previously reported results by Flamme (2001) agreed well with those reported in this study by Ruscetta et al (2005) for section I of the questionnaire. Finally, subjects completed the questionnaire a second time, three weeks after the first administration, and test-retest reliability was highly significant.…”

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 92%

“…In addition, the proportion of common variance in an item, called the communality is also estimated by factor analysis. High communality values (>0.50) are desired and indicate that the items are highly influenced by the factors (Flamme 2001). …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Validation of the Spatial Hearing Questionnaire

Tyler

Perreau²,

Ji³

2009

Ear &Amp; Hearing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives-Subjective questionnaires are informative in understanding the difficulties faced by patients with hearing loss. Our intent was to establish and validate a new questionnaire that encompasses situations emphasizing binaural hearing. The Spatial Hearing Questionnaire is a selfreport assessment tool utilizing eight subscales representing questions pertaining to the perception of male, female, and children's voices, music in quiet, source localization, understanding speech in quiet, and understanding speech in noise.Design-The Spatial Hearing Questionnaire, composed of 24 items, is scored from 0-100. It was administered to 142 subjects using one or two cochlear implants. Speech perception and localization abilities were measured, and the Speech, Spatial and Other Qualities (SSQ) questionnaire was completed to evaluate validity of the questionnaire. Psychometric tests were done to test the reliability and factor structure of the Spatial Hearing Questionnaire.Results-Results showed high internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's α = 0.98) and good construct validity (correlations between the Spatial Hearing Questionnaire and other test measures, including the SSQ, were significant). A preliminary factor analysis revealed scores loaded on three factors, representing the following conditions: localization, speech in noise and music in quiet, and speech in quiet, explaining 64.9, 13.0, and 5.3% of the variance, respectively. Most of the questionnaire items (12/24) loaded onto the first factor which represents the subscale related to source localization. Mean scores on the Spatial Hearing Questionnaire were higher for subjects with bilateral cochlear implants over subjects with a unilateral cochlear implant, consistent with other research and supporting construct validity. Conclusions-TheSpatial Hearing Questionnaire is a reliable and valid questionnaire which can be completed independently by most patients in about 10 minutes. It is likely to be a valuable tool for clinicians and researchers to measure spatial hearing abilities.

show abstract

Examination of the Validity of Auditory Traits and Tests

Cited by 14 publications

References 52 publications

Impact of Digital Labeling on Outcome Measures

Impact of Digital Labeling on Outcome Measures

Validity, Internal Consistency, and Test/Retest Reliability of a Localization Disabilities and Handicaps Questionnaire

Validation of the Spatial Hearing Questionnaire

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About