Subscribe to RSS
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 HyperacusisFunding 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.
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.
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.
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
- 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
- 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
- 3 WHO. International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). Geneva, Switzerland: The World Health Organization; 2001
- 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
- 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
- 6 Khalfa S, Bruneau N, Rogé B. et al. Increased perception of loudness in autism. Hear Res 2004; 198 (1-2): 87-92
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 10 BSA. Pure-Tone Air-Conduction and Bone-Conduction Threshold Audiometry With and Without Masking: Recommended Procedure. Reading, UK: British Society of Audiology; 2011
- 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
- 12 BSA. Recommended Procedure: Determination of Uncomfortable Loudness Levels. Reading, UK: British Society of Audiology; 2011
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 20 Baguley DM, Andersson G. Factor analysis of the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory. Am J Audiol 2003; 12 (01) 31-34
- 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
- 22 Muthén BO. Beyond SEM: general latent variable modeling. Behaviormetrika 2002; 29 (01) 81-117
- 23 Guttman L. Some necessary conditions for common factor analysis. Psychometrika 1954; 19: 149-161
- 24 Kaiser HF. The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educ Psychol Meas 1960; 20 (01) 141-151
- 25 Timmerman ME, Lorenzo-Seva U. Dimensionality assessment of ordered polytomous items with parallel analysis. Psychol Methods 2011; 16 (02) 209-220
- 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
- 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
- 28 Hoelter J. The analysis of covariance structures. Sociol Methods Res 1983; 11: 325-344
- 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
- 30 Hooper D, Coughlan J, Mullen MR. Structural equation modelling: guidelines for determining model fit. J Business Res Methods. 2008; 6 (01) 53-60
- 31 Bentler PM, Bonett D. Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychol Bull 1980; 88: 588-606
- 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
- 33 Muthén B. A structural probit model with latent variables. J Am Stat Assoc 1979; 74: 807-811
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 37 Youden WJ. Index for rating diagnostic tests. Cancer 1950; 3 (01) 32-35
- 38 Cohen J. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Meas 1960; 20 (01) 37-46
- 39 Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977; 33 (01) 159-174
- 40 Janes H, Longton G, Pepe M. Accommodating covariates in ROC analysis. Stata J 2009; 9 (01) 17-39
- 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
- 42 Cronbach LJ. Test reliability; its meaning and determination. Psychometrika 1947; 12 (01) 1-16
- 43 Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH. Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1994
- 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
- 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
- 46 Akoglu H. User's guide to correlation coefficients. Turk J Emerg Med 2018; 18 (03) 91-93
- 47 Muthen LK, Muthén B. Mplus User's Guide. 8th ed.. In: Muthén BO. ed. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén; 1998-2017
- 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
- 49 IBM. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows. 25.0 ed.. NY: IBM Corp.; Released 2017
- 50 StataCorp. Stata Statistical Software: Release 13. TX, USA: StataCorp LP; 2013
- 51 Cederroth CR, Lugo A, Edvall NK. et al. Association between hyperacusis and tinnitus. J Clin Med 2020; 9 (08) 2412
- 52 Sheldrake J, Diehl PU, Schaette R. Audiometric characteristics of hyperacusis patients. Front Neurol 2015; 6: 105
- 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
- 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
- 55 Jastreboff PJ, Jastreboff MM. Decreased sound tolerance: hyperacusis, misophonia, diplacousis, and polyacousis. Handb Clin Neurol 2015; 129: 375-387
- 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
- 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