Correction

This article refers to:

Attitudes to noise and behaviour towards hearing protection among Pasifika university students in New Zealand

Article title: Attitudes to noise and behaviour towards hearing protection among Pasifika university students in New Zealand

Authors: Reddy R, Nosa V, Mafi I, Welch D

Journal: Kōtuitui: New Zealand Journal of Social Sciences Online

Bibliometrics: Volume 16, Number 2, pages 324–334

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1177083X.2020.1865418

The authors have realised that they have made an error in how they interpreted their data. In the Instruments and measures section, they stated, ‘The responses on the YANS Likert scale were coded from five to one, where a lower score indicated a negative or pro-noise attitude and higher scores representing an attitude where noise is problematic’. This should have been the other way round where a lower score is an attitude where noise is problematic and higher scores represent a pro-noise attitude. As such, they have recalculated the means to update the article.

The fifth sentence in the Abstract should have read: The findings show that the study sample had similar low mean scores in the BAHPHL scales related to susceptibility to hearing loss, severity of hearing loss, and benefits of preventive action compared to findings of similar international research. The seventh sentence in the Abstract should have read: Despite their greater awareness, the Pasifika sample had poor attitudes related to minimising loud sounds in the daily environment, perceived barriers towards prevention, behavioural intention and social norms towards hearing conservation.

In the Instrumentation and measures section the fourth and fifth sentences in the second paragraph should have read: The responses on the YANS Likert scale were coded from five to one, where a lower score indicated an attitude where noise is problematic and higher scores representing a negative or pro-noise attitude. Items 1, 3, 4, 7, 12, 13, 15, 18 and 19 were reverse coded (Widen et al. 2006). The final two sentence in this paragraph should have read: The lower quartile (2.16–2.79) were individuals who could be characterised as having an 'anti-noise' or positive attitudes. The sample in the middle quartiles (2.80–3.46) were characterised as having a ‘neutral’ attitude, whereas those in the upper quartile (3.47–4.32) had 'pro-noise' or negative attitude.

In the Instrumentation and measures section the last two sentences of the final paragraph should have read: The lower the score (0.00-2.92) on the BAHPHL instrument, the more positive the belief towards hearing protection and hearing loss. The higher scores (3.42-4.58) reflected negative beliefs.

In the Results section the first two sentences of the second paragraph should have read: The mean for the overall YANS score was 3.14 indicating a neutral attitude towards noise. Participates held positive attitudes towards influencing the sound environment while they reported negative attitudes towards daily noise.

In the Results section the first sentence of paragraph three should have read: The mean for the overall BAHPHL score was 2.77 indicating a positive belief towards hearing protection and hearing loss. The final sentence in this paragraph should have read: However, the findings suggest negative beliefs towards barriers to preventive action, behavioural intentions and social norms (Table 3).

In the Results section the first sentence of paragraph four should have read: This study shows a neutral mean score for the entire YANS scale compared to positive mean scores for other studies.

Table 2 should have appeared as below:

Table 2. Overview of the scores on the entire YANS and the four factors.

YANS factors (N = 96)	Mean	Std. deviation	Range
Attitudes towards noise associated with elements of youth culture (e.g. attending nightclubs)	3.28	0.73	1.38–4.75
Attitudes towards the ability to concentrate in noisy environments	3.01	0.89	1.00–5.00
Attitudes to daily noises (e.g. traffic noise)	3.67	0.70	2.25–5.00
Attitudes towards influencing the sound environment (e.g. at university)	2.44	0.57	1.25–4.00
Overall YANS score	3.14	0.51	1.95–4.32

In the Results section the fifth paragraph should have read: This study shows a positive mean score for the entire BAHPHL scale which was similar to mean scores for other studies. Pasifika youth hold positive beliefs similar to other studies towards susceptibility and severity of hearing loss, and the benefits of preventing hearing loss. The mean scores for barriers to preventive action, behavioural intentions, and social norm factors suggest negative behavioural beliefs compared to neutral and positive beliefs in other studies (Figure 2).

In the Results section the final 2 paragraphs should have read: There was no difference in this study between men (mean 3.12) and women (mean 3.15) on the YANS scale: (F(1,93) = 0.00, p = 0.988).

Men scored higher than women on the Entire BAHPHL scale (F(1,94) = 9.110, p = 0.003), and also differed on some of the subscales (Figure 3).

In the Discussion section the second and third sentences should have read: In particular, the Pasifika sample had low mean scores similar to the European research in the BAHPHL scales: Susceptibility to hearing loss, Severity of hearing loss, and Benefits of preventive action, suggesting that the participants were more aware of the key issues, were concerned by daily noise, understood the risk and consequences of hearing loss and placed value on the benefits of prevention. On the other hand three factors had higher mean scores compared to those obtained in the European samples, suggesting that despite their greater awareness, the Pasifika sample had poor attitudes related to minimising loud sounds in the daily environment, perceived barriers towards prevention, behavioural intention and social norms towards hearing conservation.

Table 3 should have appeared as below:

Table 3. Overview of the scores on the entire BAHPHL and the seven factors.

BAHPHL factors (N = 96)	Mean	Std. deviation	Range
Susceptibility to hearing loss	2.32	0.63	1.00–3.50
Severity of the consequences of hearing loss	1.42	0.56	1.00–3.00
Benefits of preventive action	2.25	0.72	1.00–4.00
Barriers to preventive action	3.56	0.66	2.00–5.00
Behavioural intentions	3.59	0.91	1.00–5.00
Social norms	3.61	0.90	1.00–5.00
Self-efficacy	3.11	0.94	1.00–5.00
Entire BAHPHL	2.77	0.44	1.42–3.54

Figure 1 should have appeared as below:

Figure 1. Comparison of YANS measures with other similar studies. Error bars represent one standard error of the mean. [a] Balanay and Kearney (2015); [b] Degeest et al. (2018); [c] Gilles et al. (2012); [d] Keppler, Dhooge, et al. (2015); [e] Keppler, Ingeborg, et al. (2015).

In the Discussion section the second, third and fourth sentences in the third paragraph should have read: By contrast, youth in the previous studies had similar awareness of these. Interestingly, Pasifika students’ attitudes towards barriers, behaviour and the social aspect of hearing in protecting themselves from harm were negative and different from moderate to positive scores from previous research. This implies that young Pasifika people generally are better aware of the dangers of hearing loss but continue to engage in risky behaviour more than other groups (Gilliver et al. 2013). This may be linked to poor social attitudes and confidence to carry out this protection behaviour.

Figure 2 should have appeared as below:

Figure 2. Comparison of BAHPHL measures with other similar studies. Error bars represent one standard error of the mean. [a] Degeest et al. (2018); [b] Keppler, Dhooge, et al. (2015); [c] Keppler, Ingeborg, et al. (2015).

Figure 3 should have appeared as below:

Figure 3. Male and female scores on the BAHPHL. Error bars represent one standard error of the mean. * significant difference p < 0.05.

In the Discussion section the third sentence of the final paragraph should have read: As university students, our sample may be better informed about the impacts of hearing loss than would the general population, consistent with the high scores on some BAHPHL scales when compared to the general population samples from Europe.