Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 229

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Test-Retest Reliability of the Hearing Handicap Inventory for Adults

Newman, Craig W., Weinstein, Barbara E., Jacobson, Gary P., Hug, Gerald A.·1991·Ear and Hearing

Abstract

The test-retest reliability of the Hearing Handicap Inventory for Adults (HHIA) was assessed on a sample of 28 hearing-impaired adults. Reliability estimates were obtained to set the stage for using the HHIA as an outcome measure in aural rehabilitation. The test-retest reliability was quite high (r = 0.97) and the standard error of measurement was low for the HHIA and its screening version (HHIA-S). In light of the psychometric adequacy, the HHIA and HHIA-S have potential as indices of hearing aid benefit in hearing-impaired adults.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/00003446-199110000-00009

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 229

Metadata

Authors
Newman, C. W., Weinstein, B. E., Jacobson, G. P., & Hug, G. A.
Venue
Ear and Hearing
Published
1991-10
Volume
12
Issue
5
Pages
355-357
ISSN
0196-0202 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2018718827
Cited by
229
References
0
FWCI
0.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Test-Retest Reliability of the Hearing Handicap Inventory for Adults. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/00003446-199110000-00009
The paper
Newman, C. W., Weinstein, B. E., Jacobson, G. P., & Hug, G. A. (1991). Test-Retest Reliability of the Hearing Handicap Inventory for Adults. Ear and Hearing. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003446-199110000-00009

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.