Spatial Hearing Questionnaire : Psychometric Properties of Turkish Version and Correlations with Hearing Skills

• Autorzy: Çildir Bünyamin , Tokgoz-Yilmaz Suna , Sennaroğlu Gonca

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.24425/aoa.2021.136579

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Objective: Self-report questionnaire is informative to assess general hearing disability. The aims of this study were to investigate the reliability of Turkish version of spatial hearing questionnaire (SHQ) and to analyze the validity of the SHQ by the correlation with speech, spatial, and qualities of hearing questionnaire (SSQ) and Turkish matrix sentence test (TMST). Methods: The first part of the study was the psychometric properties of the SHQ with 192 participants (137 with normal hearing, 55 with hearing loss). In the second and main part of the study, we applied two questionnaires (SHQ and SSQ) and TMST to people other than those included in the first part of the study (88 participants with bilateral sensorineural hearing loss). We compared the results of these two questionnaires and the TMST with the speech discrimination (SD) scores. Results: Turkish spatial hearing questionnaire’s internal consistency was 0.94 and 0.97 for individuals with normal hearing and for individuals with hearing loss, respectively. Moderate, positive, statistically significant correlation was observed between the SHQ and SSQ (r = 0:606, p = 0:001 in individuals with hearing loss who do not wear any hearing aid, and r = 0:627, p = 0:001 in hearing aid users), and SHQ and SD (r = 0:561, p = 0:032 in hearing aid users). According to TMST, moderate, positive, statistically significant correlation was found between SSQ and adaptive TMST in individuals with hearing loss who do not wear any hearing aid (r = 0:330, p = 0:033 for S0N90 and r = 0:364, p = 0:018 for S0N270). Conclusions: Turkish SHQ is a valid and reliable questionnaire for assessing hearing functions. SHQ, SSQ, and TMST are clinically beneficial measuring tools in planning the process of hearing rehabilitation and follow-up.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

spatial hearing questionnaire; speech of hearing questionnaire; qualities of hearing questionnaire; Turkish matrix sentence test; hearing loss

• Wydawca: Instytut Podstawowych Problemów Techniki PAN ; Komitet Akustyki PAN ; Polskie Towarzystwo Akustyczne
• Czasopismo: Archives of Acoustics
• Rocznik: 2021
• Tom: Vol. 46, No. 2
• Strony: 249--258
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 45 poz., tab., wykr.

Twórcy

autor

Çildir Bünyamin

• Ankara Yıdırım Beyazıt University, Health Sciences Faculty, Speech Language Therapy Department, Ankara, Turkey

autor

Tokgoz-Yilmaz Suna

• Ankara University, Health Sciences Faculty, Audiology Department, Ankara, Turkey

autor

Sennaroğlu Gonca

• Hacettepe University, Health Sciences Faculty, Audiology Department, Ankara, Turkey

Bibliografia

• 1. Abdollahi F. Z., Delphi M., Delphi V. (2019), The correlation analysis between the spatial hearing questionnaire (SHQ) and the psychophysical measurement of spatial hearing, Indian Journal of Otolaryngology and Head, Neck Surgery, 71 (2): 1658-1662, doi: 10.1007/s12070-019-01674-2.
• 2. Ahlstrom J. B., Horwitz A. R., Dubno J. R. (2009), Spatial benefit of bilateral hearing aids, Ear and Hearing, 30 (2): 203-218, doi: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e31819769c1.
• 3. Ahlstrom J. B., Horwitz A. R., Dubno J. R. (2014), Spatial separation benefit for unaided and aided listening, Ear and Hearing, 35 (1): 72-85, doi: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e3182a02274.
• 4. Akeroyd M. A., Guy F. H., Harrison D. L., Suller S. L. (2014), A factor analysis of the SSQ (Speech, Spatial, and Qualities of Hearing Scale), International Journal of Audiology, 53 (2): 101-114, doi: 10.3109/14992027.2013.824115.
• 5. Allen K., Carlile S., Alais D. (2008), Contributions of talker characteristics and spatial location to auditory streaming, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 123 (3): 1562-1570, doi: 10.1121/1.2831774.
• 6. Bertoli S., Bodmer D., Probst R. (2010), Survey on hearing aid outcome in Switzerland: Associations with type of fitting (bilateral/unilateral), level of hearing aid signal processing, and hearing loss, International Journal of Audiology, 49 (5): 333-346, doi: 10.3109/14992020903473431.
• 7. Best V., Kalluri S., McLachlan S., Valentine S., Edwards B., Carlile S. (2010), A comparison of CIC and BTE hearing aids for three-dimensional localization of speech, International Journal of Audiology, 49 (10): 723-732, doi: 10.3109/14992027.2010.484827.
• 8. Brand T., Kollmeier B. (2002), Efficient adaptive procedures for threshold and concurrent slope estimates for psychophysics and speech intelligibility tests, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 111 (6): 2801-2810, doi: 10.1121/1.1479152.
• 9. Cameron S., Dillon H. (2008), The listening in spatialized noise-sentences test (LISN-S): comparison to the prototype lisn and results from children with either a suspected (central) auditory processing disorder or a confirmed language disorder, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology, 19 (5): 377-391, doi: 10.3766/jaaa.19.5.2.
• 10. Cruice M., Worrall L., Hickson L. (2006), Quantifying aphasic people’s social lives in the context of non-aphasic peers, Aphasiology, 20 (12): 1210-1225, doi: 10.1080/02687030600790136.
• 11. Delphi M., Abdolahi F. Z., Tyler R., Bakhit M., Saki N., Nazeri A. R. (2015), Validity and reliability of the Persian version of spatial hearing questionnaire, Medical Journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran, 29 (1): 572-579, http://mjiri.iums.ac.ir/article-1-3011-en.pdf.
• 12. Dietz A. et al. (2014), The development and evaluation of the Finnish Matrix Sentence Test for speech intelligibility assessment, Acta Oto-laryngologica, 134 (7): 728-737, doi: 10.3109/00016489.2014.898185.
• 13. Draaijers L. J. et al. (2004), The patient and observer scar assessment scale: a reliable and feasible tool for scar evaluation. Plastic and reconstructive Surgery, 113 (7): 1960-1965, doi: 10.1097/01.prs.0000122207.28773.56.
• 14. Drennan W. R., Gatehouse S., Howell P., Van Tasell D., Lund S. (2005), Localization and speech-identification ability of hearing-impaired listeners using phase-preserving amplification, Ear and Hearing, 26 (5): 461-472, doi: 10.1097/01.aud.0000179690.30137.21.
• 15. Dubno J. R., Ahlstrom J. B., Horwitz A. R. (2002), Spectral contributions to the benefit from spatial separation of speech and noise, Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 45 (6): 1297-1310, doi: 10.1044/1092-4388(2002/104).
• 16. Festen J., Plomp R. (1986), Speech-reception threshold in noise with one and two hearing aids. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 79 (2): 465-471, doi: 10.1121/1.393534.
• 17. Gatehouse S., Noble W. (2004), The speech, spatial and qualities of hearing scale (SSQ). International Journal of Audiology, 43 (2): 85-99, doi: 10.1080/14992020400050014.
• 18. Gürses E., Türkyılmaz M. D., Sennaroğlu G. (2020), Evaluation of auditory temporal processing in patients fitted with bone-anchored hearing aids, European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, 277 (2), 351-359, doi: 10.1007/s00405-019-05701-4.
• 19. Glyde H., Cameron S., Dillon H., Hickson L., Seeto M. (2013), The effects of hearing impairment and aging on spatial processing. Ear and hearing, 34 (1): 15-28, doi: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e3182617f94.
• 20. Hagerman B. (1982), Sentences for testing speech intelligibility in noise, Scandinavian audiology, 11 (2): 79-87, doi: 10.3109/01050398209076203.
• 21. Heo J. H., Lee J. H., Lee W. S. (2013), Bimodal benefits on objective and subjective outcomes for adult cochlear implant users, Korean Journal of Audiology, 17 (2): 65-73, doi: 10.7874/kja.2013.17.2.65.
• 22. Hochmuth S., Brand T., Zokoll M. A., Castro F. Z., Wardenga N., Kollmeier B. A. (2012), A Spanish matrix sentence test for assessing speech reception thresholds in noise, International Journal of Audiology, 51 (7): 536-544, doi: 10.3109/14992027.2012.670731.
• 23. Houben R. et al. (2014), Development of a Dutch matrix sentence test to assess speech intelligibility in noise, International Journal of Audiology, 53 (10): 760-763, doi: 10.3109/14992027.2014.920111.
• 24. Kılıç N. (2017), Normalization and adaptation of speech, spatial and quality of hearing scale (SSQ) for Turkish language and evaluation of adults with normal hearing and sensorineural hearing loss by SSQ [in Turkish], Gazi University Institute of Health Sciences, MSc Thesis.
• 25. Killion M. C., Papalias C. W., Becker A. J., Mapes-Riordan D. (2002), Hearing aid having digital damping: Google Patents.
• 26. Kollmeier B., Wesselkamp M. (1997), Development and evaluation of a German sentence test for objective and subjective speech intelligibility assessment, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 102 (4): 2412-2421, doi: 10.1121/1.419624.
• 27. Kong T. H., Park Y. A., Bong J. P., Park S. Y. (2017), Validation of the Korean version of the spatial hearing questionnaire for assessing the severity and symmetry of hearing impairment, Yonsei Medical Journal, 58 (4): 842-847, doi: 10.3349/ymj.2017.58.4.842.
• 28. Köbler S., Rosenhall U. (2002), Horizontal localization and speech intelligibility with bilateral and unilateral hearing aid amplification, International Journal of Audiology, 41 (7): 395-400, doi: 10.3109/14992020209090416.
• 29. Köbler S., Rosenhall U., Hansson H. (2001), Bilateral hearing aids-effects and consequences from a user perspective, Scandinavian Audiology, 30 (4): 223-235, doi: 10.1080/01050390152704742.
• 30. Lorenzi C., Gatehouse S., Lever C. (1999), Sound localization in noise in hearing-impaired listeners, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 105 (6): 3454-3463, doi: 10.1121/1.424672.
• 31. Noble W., Ter-Horst K., Byrne D. (1995), Disabilities and handicaps associated with impaired auditory localization, Journal-American Academy of Audiology, 6 (2): 129-140.
• 32. Ou H., Perreau A., Tyler R. S. (2017), Development of a shortened version of the Spatial Hearing Questionnaire (SHQ-S) for screening spatial-hearing ability, American Journal of Audiology, 26 (3): 293-300, doi: 10.1044/2017_AJA-17-0030.
• 33. Peissig J., Kollmeier B. (1997), Directivity of binaural noise reduction in spatial multiple noise-source arrangements for normal and impaired listeners, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 101 (3): 1660-1670, doi: 10.1121/1.418150.
• 34. Perreau A. E., Ou H., Tyler R., Dunn C. (2014), Self-reported spatial hearing abilities across different cochlear implant profiles, American Journal of Audiology, 23 (4): 374-384, doi: 10.1044/2014_AJA-14-0015.
• 35. Potvin J., Punte A. K., de Heyning Van P. (2011), Validation of the Dutch version of the Spatial Hearing Questionnaire, B-ENT, 7 (4): 235-244.
• 36. Preston C. C., Colman A. M. (2000), Optimal number of response categories in rating scales: reliability, validity, discriminating power, and respondent preferences, Acta Psychologica, 104 (1): 1-15, doi: 10.1016/s0001-6918(99)00050-5.
• 37. Schafer E. C., Beeler S., Ramos H., Morais M., Monzingo J., Algier K. (2012), Developmental effects and spatial hearing in young children with normal-hearing sensitivity, Ear and Hearing, 33 (6): e32-e43, doi: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e318258c616.
• 38. Smoorenburg G. F. (1992), Speech reception in quiet and in noisy conditions by individuals with noise-induced hearing loss in relation to their tone audiogram, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 91 (1): 421-437, doi: 10.1121/1.402729.
• 39. Terwee C. B. et al. (2007), Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 60 (1): 34-42, doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.03.012.
• 40. Tonning F.-M. (1971), Directional audiometry: II. The influence of azimuth on the perception of speech, Acta Oto-laryngologica, 72 (5): 352-357, doi: 10.3109/00016487109122493.
• 41. Tyler R. S., Perreau A. E., Ji H. (2009), The validation of the spatial hearing questionnaire, Ear and Hearing, 30 (4): 466-474, doi: 10.1097/AUD.0b013e3181a61efe.
• 42. Warzybok A., Zokoll M., Wardenga N., Ozimek E., Boboshko M., Kollmeier B. (2015), Development of the Russian matrix sentence test, International Journal of Audiology, 54 (Sup2): 35-43, doi: 10.3109/14992027.2015.1020969.
• 43. Wilson R. H., Strouse A. (2002), Northwestern University Auditory Test No. 6 in multi-talker babble: A preliminary report, Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, 39 (1): 105-114.
• 44. Zhang J. et al. (2015), Speech, Spatial and Qualities of Hearing Scale (SSQ) and Spatial Hearing Questionnaire (SHQ) changes over time in adults with simultaneous cochlear implants. American Journal of Audiology, 24 (3): 384-397, doi: 10.1044/2015_AJA-14-0074.
• 45. Zokoll M. A. et al. (2015), Development and evaluation of the Turkish matrix sentence test, International Journal of Audiology, 54 (Suppl 2): 51-61, doi: 10.3109/14992027.2015.1074735.

Uwagi

Opracowanie rekordu ze środków MNiSW, umowa Nr 461252 w ramach programu "Społeczna odpowiedzialność nauki" - moduł: Popularyzacja nauki i promocja sportu (2021).