Cited by 110Hearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, GeneticsHearing Loss and RehabilitationNoise Effects and Management

Hyperacusis Questionnaire as a Tool for Measuring Hypersensitivity to Sound in a Tinnitus Research Population

Open access
Fackrell, Kathryn, Fearnley, Constance, Hoare, Derek J., Sereda, Magdalena·2015·BioMed Research International

Abstract

Hypersensitivity to external sounds is often comorbid with tinnitus and may be significant for adherence to certain types of tinnitus management. Therefore, a clear measure of sensitivity to sound is important. The aim of this study was to evaluate the validity and reliability of the Hyperacusis Questionnaire (HQ) for use as a measurement tool using data from a sample of 264 adults who took part in tinnitus research. We evaluated the HQ factor structure, internal consistency, convergent and discriminant validity, and floor and ceiling effects. Internal consistency was high (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.88) and moderate correlations were observed between the HQ, uncomfortable loudness levels, and other health questionnaires. Confirmatory factor analysis revealed that the original HQ three-factor solution and a one-factor solution were both a poor fit to the data. Four problematic items were removed and exploratory factor analysis identified a two-factor (attentional and social) solution. The original three-factor structure of the HQ was not confirmed. All fourteen items do not accurately assess hypersensitivity to sound in a tinnitus population. We propose a 10-item (2-factor) version of the HQ, which will need to be confirmed using a new tinnitus and perhaps nontinnitus population.

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 · 10.1155/2015/290425

Cites

72 of 72 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • There is a reasonable body of evidence on the development and reliability of the HQ as a diagnostic tool.

    “There is reasonable body of evidence on the development and reliability of the HQ as a diagnostic tool [63, 68]”

    From Clinical Interventions for Hyperacusis in Adults: A Scoping Review to Assess the Current Position and Determine Priorities for Research (2017) · cites this paper as [68]

    The Results (§3.3) report high internal consistency for the HQ, and the Introduction (§1) describes its development and use as a screening tool. But the Introduction says its original structure had not been confirmed in a UK population, while the Discussion (§4) questions the proposed diagnostic cutoff. The paper therefore supports evidence on the HQ’s development and some reliability, but not an unqualified characterization of it as a reliable diagnostic tool. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Questions have been raised on the appropriateness of the items in the HQ and the need for validation in a population with a primary complaint of hyperacusis.

    “Questions have been raised on the appropriateness of the items in the questionnaire and the need of validation in a population with a primary complaint of hyperacusis is known [68].”

    From Clinical Interventions for Hyperacusis in Adults: A Scoping Review to Assess the Current Position and Determine Priorities for Research (2017) · cites this paper as [68]

    The Discussion identifies problematic HQ items in the tinnitus research sample, and the Conclusions/Recommendations call for further validation. However, the paper recommends validation in general populations, including UK populations; it does not specifically call for validation among people whose primary complaint is hyperacusis. The indexed passages provide section labels but no page numbers. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 75 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. [6]Fabijanska A. Rogowski M. Bartnik G. Hazell J. W. P. Epidemiology of tinnitus and hyperacusis in Poland Proceeding of the Sixth International Tinnitus Seminar 1999 Cambridge, UK THC 569 571
  2. [11]Jastreboff P. J. Hazell J. Tinnitus Retraining Therapy: Implementing the Neurophysiological Mode 2004 Cambridge, UK Cambridge University Press
  3. [44]Sereda M. Davies J. Hall D. A. Evaluating a pre-market version of Oticon Alta with a Tinnitus Sound Generator: Tinnitus relief Proceedings of the British Academy of Audiology 11th Annual Conference November 2014 Bournemouth, UK
  4. [72]Tabachnick B. G. Fidell L. S. Using Multivariate Statistics 2013 6th Boston, Mass, USA Pearson

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fackrell, K., Fearnley, C., Hoare, D. J., & Sereda, M.
Affiliations
University of Nottingham (GB)
Corresponding author
Sereda, Magdalena
Venue
BioMed Research International
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015
Volume
2015
Pages
1-12
ISSN
  • 1110-7243 (ISSN-L)
  • 2314-6133
  • 2314-6141
OpenAlex
W2116418013
Cited by
110
References
75
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 4 · 2014: 1
FWCI
4.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BioMed Research International (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Repository@Nottingham (University of Nottingham) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Repository@Nottingham (University of Nottingham) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Nottingham ePrints (University of Nottingham) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Unit
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Sensory Systems › Hearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, Genetics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Hearing Loss and Rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Speech and Hearing › Noise Effects and Management
Keywords
hyperacusis, tinnitus, questionnaire validity, reliability statistics, factor structure, factor analysis, convergent and discriminant validity, floor and ceiling effects, uncomfortable loudness level, questionnaire shortening
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Psychometrics, Surveys and Questionnaires, Hyperacusis, Tinnitus, Reproducibility of Results, Young Adult

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