TY - JOUR
T1 - Cut-off score of the Khalfa Hyperacusis Questionnaire with 10 selected items
AU - Yamada, Hiroyuki
AU - Ishikawa, Toru
AU - Oishi, Naoki
AU - Ogawa, Kaoru
N1 - Funding Information:
The authors thank Editage (www.editage.com) for English language editing.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 British Society of Audiology, International Society of Audiology, and Nordic Audiological Society.
PY - 2022
Y1 - 2022
N2 - Objective: In the management of hyperacusis, the hyperacusis questionnaire (HQ) is a frequently used measure. It is comprised of 14 items, with a total score of 42 points. We have developed the Japanese version of the HQ, but the validity of the factors has not been considered. This study was performed to re-evaluate the HQ to confirm its validity and reliability. Design: Exploratory factor analysis was performed and we removed the problematic items with low factor loadings and re-evaluated the reliability and validity. Study Sample: Patients with hyperacusis (n = 109) were included. Hyperacusis was confirmed based on the patients’ complaint of “intolerance to sound”. Patients without hyperacusis but with tinnitus and/or hearing loss (n = 103) were also included. Results: Items 1, 5, 6, and 11 had low factor loadings; therefore, we removed these four items. The HQ with 10 items had high internal consistency reliability (Cronbach’s α = 0.926). The mean total scores for the patients with and without hyperacusis were 16.3 and 4.0, respectively; the inter-group difference was statistically significant. We found the best score that maximised sensitivity and specificity was 8. Conclusions: The HQ with 10 items, up to 30 points and a cut-off score of 8 is appropriate for classifying hyperacusis.
AB - Objective: In the management of hyperacusis, the hyperacusis questionnaire (HQ) is a frequently used measure. It is comprised of 14 items, with a total score of 42 points. We have developed the Japanese version of the HQ, but the validity of the factors has not been considered. This study was performed to re-evaluate the HQ to confirm its validity and reliability. Design: Exploratory factor analysis was performed and we removed the problematic items with low factor loadings and re-evaluated the reliability and validity. Study Sample: Patients with hyperacusis (n = 109) were included. Hyperacusis was confirmed based on the patients’ complaint of “intolerance to sound”. Patients without hyperacusis but with tinnitus and/or hearing loss (n = 103) were also included. Results: Items 1, 5, 6, and 11 had low factor loadings; therefore, we removed these four items. The HQ with 10 items had high internal consistency reliability (Cronbach’s α = 0.926). The mean total scores for the patients with and without hyperacusis were 16.3 and 4.0, respectively; the inter-group difference was statistically significant. We found the best score that maximised sensitivity and specificity was 8. Conclusions: The HQ with 10 items, up to 30 points and a cut-off score of 8 is appropriate for classifying hyperacusis.
KW - Hyperacusis
KW - hearing loss
KW - questionnaire
KW - self-rating scales
KW - tinnitus
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85102944704&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85102944704&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1080/14992027.2021.1894491
DO - 10.1080/14992027.2021.1894491
M3 - Article
C2 - 33733977
AN - SCOPUS:85102944704
SN - 1499-2027
VL - 61
SP - 245
EP - 250
JO - International Journal of Audiology
JF - International Journal of Audiology
IS - 3
ER -