Development of the listening self-efficacy questionnaire (LSEQ)

International Journal of Audiology

Volumn 50, Issue 6, 2011, Pages 417-425

  Smith, Sherri L ^a,b,f   Kathleen Pichora Fuller, M ^c,d,e   Watts, Kelly L ^a   La More, Carissa ^b  

^a James H Quillen VA Medical Center   (United States)

^b EAST TENNESSEE STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^d TORONTO REHABILITATION INSTITUTE   (Canada)

^e LINKÖPING UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^f Audiology ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

Age; Audiologic rehabilitation; Confi dence; Hearing loss; Listening in noise; Questionnaire; Self effi cacy; Self report; Speech perception

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGE; AGED; ARTICLE; AUDITORY NERVOUS SYSTEM; AUDITORY STIMULATION; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; COMPREHENSION; FEMALE; HEARING LOSS; HUMAN; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NOISE; OTOSCOPY; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PERCEPTION; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; PSYCHOPHYSICS; PURE TONE AUDIOMETRY; QUESTIONNAIRE; RECOGNITION; REPRODUCIBILITY; SELF CONCEPT; SPEECH AUDIOMETRY; SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY; SPEECH PERCEPTION; VALIDATION STUDY;

ACOUSTIC STIMULATION; ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGE FACTORS; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; AUDIOMETRY, PURE-TONE; AUDIOMETRY, SPEECH; AUDITORY PATHWAYS; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; COMPREHENSION; FEMALE; HEARING LOSS; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NOISE; OTOSCOPY; PERCEPTUAL MASKING; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PSYCHOACOUSTICS; QUESTIONNAIRES; RECOGNITION (PSYCHOLOGY); REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SELF EFFICACY; SPEECH INTELLIGIBILITY; SPEECH PERCEPTION; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 79957461210     PISSN: 14992027     EISSN: 17088186     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3109/14992027.2011.553205     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. American National Standards Institute. 2004. Specifi cation of audiometers (S3.6-2004). New York: ANSI.
2. Bandura A. 1997. Self effi cacy: The Exercise of Control . New York: Freeman.
3. Bandura A. 2001. Guide for constructing self-effi cacy scales. In: F. Pajares & T. Urdan (eds.) Self-effi cacy Beliefs of Adolescents . USA: Information Age Publishing, pp. 307-337.
4. Borg E. 2000. Ecological aspect of auditory rehabilitation . Acta Otolaryngol, 120, 234-241.
5. Borg E., Danermark B. & Borg B. 2002. Behavioral awareness, interaction, and counselling education in audiological rehabilitation: Development of methods and application in a pilot study. Int J Audiol, 41, 308-322. (Pubitemid 37408437)
6. Borg E. 2003. Assessment of communicating systems of the basis of an ecological conceptual framework. Int J Audiol, 42, 23-33.
7. Borg E., Bergkvist C., Olsson I., Wikstrom C. & Borg B. 2008. Communication as an ecological system. Int J Audiol, 47 (Suppl. 2), S131-S138.
8. Cox R.M. & Alexander G.C. 1995. The Abbreviated Profi le of Hearing Aid Benefi t. Ear Hear, 16, 176-186.
9. Department of Veterans Affairs. 2006. Speech recognition and identifi cation materials. Disc 4.0 (compact disc). Mountain Home (USA): Department of Veterans Affairs.
10. DeVellis R.F. 1991. Scale Development: Theory and Applications (Applied Social Research Methods Series, Vol. 26) . Newbury Park: Sage.
11. Edwards B. 2007. The future of hearing aid technology. Trends Amplif, 11, 31-45.
12. Finny D.J. 1952. Statistical Method in Biological Assay . London: C.
13. Griffen. Franzblau A. 1958. A Primer of Statistics for Non-Statisticians. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World.
14. Gatehouse S. & Noble W. 2004. The speech, spatial and qualities of hearing scale (SSQ). Int J Audiol, 43, 85-99. (Pubitemid 38295489)
15. Gray T.F. & Speaks C.E. 1978. Ability of hearing-impaired listeners to understand connected discourse. J Am Audiol Soc, 3, 159-166.
16. Hutcheson G. & Sofroniou N. 1999. The Multivariate Social Scientist. London: Sage.
17. ISO. 2000. ISO-7029: Acoustics statistical distribution of hearing thresholds as a function of age. Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization.
18. Jennings S. 2005. Factors that infl uence outcomes from aural rehabilitation of older adults: The role of perceived self-effi cacy. Unpublished dissertation.
19. Kaiser H.F. 1970. A second-generation little jiffy. Psychometrika, 35, 401-415.
20. Kaiser H.F. 1974. An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39, 31-36.
21. Lynn M.R. 1986. Determination and quantifi cation of content validity. Nurs Res, 35, 382-385. (Pubitemid 17184381)
22. Noble W. 1983. Hearing, hearing impairment, and the audible world: A theoretical method. Audiol, 22, 325-338. (Pubitemid 13074994)
23. Noble W. & H é tu R. 1994. An ecological approach to disability and handicap in relation to impaired hearing. Audiol, 33, 117-126. (Pubitemid 24057148)
24. Noh S., Gang é J-P. & Kaspar J. 1994. Models of health behaviors and compliance: Applications to audiologic rehabilitation. J Acad Rehab Audiol, 27, 375-389.
25. Pichora-Fuller M.K. 2008. Use of supportive context by younger and older adult listeners: Balancing bottom-up and top-down information processing. Int J Audiol, 47 (Suppl. 2), S144-154.
26. Pichora-Fuller M.K. & Singh G. 2006. Effects of age on auditory and cognitive processing: Implications for hearing aid fi tting and audiologic rehabilitation. Trends Amp, 10, 29-59. (Pubitemid 44257141)
27. Plack K., Herpertz S. & Petrak F. 2010. Behavioral medicine interventions in diabetes. Curr Opin Psychiatry, 23, 131-8.
28. Polit D. & Hungler B. 1999. Nursing Research: Principles and Methods (6th ed.). Philadelphia: Lippincott.
29. Saunders G.H., Forsline A. & Fausti S.A. 2004. The Performance Perceptual Test and its relationship to unaided reported handicap. Ear Hear, 25, 117-126. (Pubitemid 38451760)
30. Smith S.L. & West R.L. 2006. The application of self-effi cacy principles to audiologic rehabilitation: A tutorial. Am J Audiol, 15, 46-56.
31. Stephens D. 1997. Audiological rehabilitation. In: D. Stephens (ed.) Scott Brown ' s Otolaryngology. Vol. 2: Adult Audiology. 6th ed. Oxford: But-terworth Heinemann, pp. 1-36.
32. Stephens D. & H é tu R. 1991. Impairment, disability and handicap in audiol-ogy: Towards a consensus. Audiol, 30, 185-200.
33. Tillman T.W. & Carhart R. 1966. An expanded test for speech discrimination utilizing CNC monosyllabic words. Northwestern University Auditory Test No. 6. Brooks Air Force Base, Texas: USAF School of Aerospace Medicine Technical Report, 1-12.
34. Trouillet R., Gana K., Lourel M. & Fort I. 2009. Predictive value of age for coping: The role of self-effi cacy, social support satisfaction and perceived stress. Aging Ment Health, 13, 357-366.
35. Van de Bijl J.J. & Shortridge-Baggett L.M. 2001. The theory and measurement of the self-effi cacy construct. Sch Inq Nurs Pract, 15, 189-207.
36. Ventry I.M. & Weinstein B.E. 1982. The Hearing Handicap Inventory of the Elderly: A new tool. Ear Hear, 3, 128-134. (Pubitemid 12008115)
37. Ventry I. & Weinstein B. 1983. Idenitifcation of elderly people with hearing problems. Am Speech Lang Hear Assoc, 25, 37-42.
38. West R.L. & Smith S.L. 2007. Development of a hearing aid self-effi cacy questionnaire. Int J Audiol, 46, 759-771. (Pubitemid 350211320)
39. Wilson R.H. 2003. Development of a speech in multitalker babble paradigm to assess word-recognition performance. J Am Acad Audiol, 14, 453-470.
40. Wilson R.H., Abrams H.B. & Pillion A.L. 2003. A word-recognition task in multitalker babble using a descending presentation mode from 24 dB to 0 dB signal to babble. J Rehabil Res Dev, 40, 321-327. (Pubitemid 36988689)
41. Wilson R.H. & Burks C.A. 2005. The use of 35 words to evaluate hearing loss in terms of signal-to-babble ratio: A clinical protocol. J Rehabil Res Dev, 42, 839-852.
42. Wilson R.H., McArdle R. & Smith S.L. 2007. An evaluation of the BKB-SIN, HINT, QuickSIN, and WIN materials on listeners with normal hearing and listeners with hearing loss. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 50, 844-56. (Pubitemid 350058563)
43. Wingfi eld A. & Tun P.A. 2007. Cognitive supports and cognitive constraints on comprehension of spoken language. J Am Acad Audiol, 18, 548-558. (Pubitemid 351175758)
44. Yaghmaie R. 2003. Content validity and its estimation. J Med Educ, 3, 25-27.