Development and psychometric properties of the sound preference and hearing habits questionnaire (SP-HHQ)

References

• Arbuckle, J.L., Marcoulides, G.A. & Schumacker, R.E. 1996. Full information estimation in the presence of incomplete data. Advanced structural equation modeling: Issues and techniques, pp. 243–277.
   Google Scholar
• Baron, R.M. & Kenny, D.A. 1986. The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J Pers Soc Psychol, 51, 1173–1182.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bollen, K.A. 1989. A new incremental fit index for general structural equation models. Sociol Methods Res, 17, 303–316.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bregman, A. 1990. Auditory Scene Analysis: The Perceptual Organization of Sound. Cambridge, MA: MIT.
   Google Scholar
• Browne, M.W. & Cudeck, R. 1993. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In: Bollen, K.A. & Lohng, J.S. (eds.) Testing Structural Models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Costa, P.T. Jr. & McCrae, R.R. 1985. The NEO personality inventory. Manual. Form S and Form R. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
   Google Scholar
• Cox, R.M. & Alexander, G.C. 1995. “The Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB)”. Ear Hear, 16, 176–186.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cox, R.M., Alexander, G.C. & Gray, G. 1999. Personality and the subjective assessment of hearing aids. J Am Acad Audiol, 10, 1–13.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cox, R.M., Alexander, G.C. & Gray, G.A. 2005. Who wants a hearing aid? Personality profiles of hearing aid seekers. Ear Hear, 26, 12–26.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ellermeier, W., Eigenstetter, M. & Zimmer, K. 2001. Psychoacoustic correlates of individual noise sensitivity. J Acoust Soc Am, 109, 1464–1473.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fackrell, K., Fearnley, C., Hoare, D.J. & Sereda, M. 2015. Hyperacusis questionnaire as a tool for measuring hypersensitivity to sound in a Tinnitus Research population. BioMed Res Int Vol, Article ID 290425, http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/290425.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Fornell, C. & Larcker, D.F. 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Market Res, 18, 39–50.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gatehouse, S. & Noble, W. 2004. “The Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ),”. Int J Audiol, 43, 85–89.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grimm, G., Luberadzka, J., Herzke, T. & Hohmann, V. 2015. Toolbox for acoustic scene creation and rendering (TASCAR) – Render methods and research applications. In: Proceedings of the Linux Audio Conference, Mainz, 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Guski, R. 1999. Personal and social variables as co-determinants of noise annoyance. Noise Health, 1,45–56.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hagerman, B. & Gabrielsson, A. 1985. Questionnaires on desirable properties of hearing aids. Scand Audiol, 14, 109–111.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hansen, M. 2002. Effects of multi-channel compression time constants on subjectively perceived sound quality and speech intelligibility. Ear Hear, 23, 369–380.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hidalgo, J.L.T., Gras, C.B., Lapeira, J.M.T., Martinez, I.P., Verdejo, M.A.L., et al. 2008. The hearing-dependent daily activities scale to evaluate impact of hearing loss in older people. Ann Fam Med, 6, 441–447.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hu, L. & Bentler, P.M. 1999. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Model: Multidiscipl J, 6, 1–55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huber, R. & Kollmeier, B. 2006. PEMO-Q – A new method for objective audio quality assessment using a model of auditory perception. IEEE Trans Audio Speech Lang Process, 14, 1902–1911.
   Google Scholar
• ITU-R BS.1387, 1998. “Method for objective measurements of perceived audio quality,” Intl. Telecom. Union, Geneva, Switzerland.
   Google Scholar
• ITU-T P.863, 2011. “Perceptual Objective Listening Quality Assessment,” International Telecommunication Union, Geneva, Switzerland.
   Google Scholar
• Kates, J.M. & Arehart, K.H. 2016. The Hearing-Aid Audio Quality Index (HAAQI). IEEE/ACM Trans Audio Speech Lang Process, 24, 354–365 [Epub 2015 Dec 10].
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keidser, G. & Dillon, H. 2006. What’ s new in prescriptive fittings Down Under? In: Palmer, C.V. & Seewald, R. (eds.) Hearing Care for Adults 2006. Stäfa, Switzerland: Phonak AG, pp. 133–142.
   Google Scholar
• Kline, R.B. 2011. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling, 3rd ed. Methodology in the Social Sciences. New York: Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kochkin, S. & Marke Trak, V. 2000. ʽWhy my hearing aids are in the drawer’: The consumers’ perspective. Hear J, 53, 34–41.
   Google Scholar
• Lunner, T. 2003. Cognitive function in relation to hearing aid use. Int J Audiol, 42, S49–S55.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meis, M., Jacob, R., Stelzig, Y., Buschermöhle, M. & Berg, D. 2015. Vergleich von zwei Screening-Fragebögen zur Identifikation von Patienten mit Hörstörungen (Comparison of two questionnaires for the identification of patients with hearing loss). 18. Jahrestagung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Audiologie (DGA) in Bochum vom 04. 03. – 07. 03. 2015. ISBN 978-3-9813141-5-1.
   Google Scholar
• Meister, H., Lausberg, I., Kiessling, J., Walger, M. & von Wedel, H. 2002. Determining the importance of fundamental hearing aid attributes. Otol Neurotol, 23, 457–462.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Muthen, L. & Muthen, O. 2014. Mplus User’s Guide, 7th ed. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
   Google Scholar
• Neher, T. 2014. Relating hearing loss and executive functions to hearing aid users’ preference for, and speech recognition with, different combinations of binaural noise reduction and microphone directionality. Front Neurosci, 8, 391. DOI: 10.3389/fnins.2014.00391.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Neher, T., Wagener, K.C., Meis, M. & Fischer, R.L. 2016a. Relating hearing aid users’ preferred noise reduction setting to different measures of noise tolerance and distortion sensitivity. In: Santurette, S., Dau, T., Dalsgaard, J.C., Tranebjærg, L., Andersen, T., Poulsen, T. (eds.) Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on Auditory and Audiological Research (ISAAR 2015). Individual Hearing Loss – Characterization, Modelling, Compensation Strategies. ISBN 978-87-990013-5-4.
   Google Scholar
• Neher, T., Wagener, K.C. & Fischer, R.L. 2016b. Directional processing and noise reduction in hearing aids: Individual and situational influences on preferred setting. J Am Acad Audiol, 27, DOI: 10.3766/jaaa.15062.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nielsen, J.B. & Nielsen, J. 2013. Efficient individualization of hearing aid processed sound. Proceedings of the IEEE International, Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, pp. 398–402. ISSN: 1520-6149, DOI: 10.1109/ICASSP.2013.6637677.
   Google Scholar
• Oetting, D., Rennies, J. & Appell, J.E. 2014. Hearing supportive algorithm with self-adjustment user interface integrated in the telephone network. World Telecommunications Congress (WTC).
   Google Scholar
• Pelz, C., Schmitt, A. & Meis, M. 2004. Knowledge Mapping als Methode der Auswertung und Ergebnispräsentation von Fokusgruppen in der Markt- und Evaluationsforschung (Knowledge Mapping as a Tool for Analyzing Focus Groups and Presenting Their Results in Market and Evaluation Research). Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum Qual Soc Res [Online Journal], 5, Art. 35. http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/601.
   Google Scholar
• Rubin, D.B. 1987. Multiple Imputations for Nonresponse in Surveys. New York: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• POLQA. 2012. Application Guide HEAD Acoustics Documentation (2012). Head Acoustics. www.head-acoustics.de/downloads/eng/application_notes/telecom/Appl_Guide_POLQA_e0.pdf. Link proofed May, 13, 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Sax, L. 2010. Sex differences in hearing. Implications for best practice in the classroom. Adv Gender Educ, 2, 13–21.
   Google Scholar
• Schlink, S. & Walther, E. 2007. Kurz und gut: Eine deutsche Kurzskala zur Erfassung des Bedürfnisses nach kognitiver Geschlossenheit (Engl. Title: A German short scale of the assessment of cognitive closure). Z Sozialpsychol, 38, 153–161.
   Google Scholar
• Schutte, M., Marks, A., Wenning, E. & Griefhahn, B. 2007. The development of the noise sensitivity questionnaire. Noise Health, 9, 15–24.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• van Hiel, A. & Mervielde, I. 2003. The need for closure and the spontaneous use of complex and simple cognitive structures. J Soc Psychol, 143, 559–568. doi:10.1080/00224540309598463.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Webster, D.M. & Kruglanski, A.W. 1994. Individual differences in need for cognitive closure. J Pers Soc Psychol, 67, 1049–1062. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.67.6.1049.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• World Health Organization. 2001. Grades of hearing impairment. Hearing Network News, 1, 144–157.
   Google Scholar
• Zimmer, K. & Ellermeier, W. 1998. Ein Kurzfragebogen zur Erfassung der Lärmempfindlichkeit (Engl. title: A short questionnaire for the assessment of noise sensitivity). Umweltpsychologie, 2, 54–63.
   Google Scholar